Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Stanley JOHN, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Darryl C. DE VIVO, M.D., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Moris Angulo, M.D., et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith N. McMahon, J.), entered December 10, 2018, which granted defendants-respondents' motion to dismiss the causes of action asserted on behalf of infant plaintiff A.D.J., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To the extent the complaint alleges that if plaintiffs had known that their subsequent children would be afflicted with the same condition as the infant A.J., they would not have conceived A.D.J. or would have had A.D.J. genetically screened for abnormalities before he was carried to term, it fails to state a cause of action on behalf of A.D.J. because an impaired infant has no claim for wrongful life or wrongful birth (Alquijay v. St. Luke's–Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 63 N.Y.2d 978, 483 N.Y.S.2d 994, 473 N.E.2d 244 [1984]; B.F. v. Reproductive Medicine Assoc. of N.Y., LLP, 136 A.D.3d 73, 76, 22 N.Y.S.3d 190 [1st Dept. 2015], affd 30 N.Y.3d 608, 69 N.Y.S.3d 543, 92 N.E.3d 766 [2017]). To the extent plaintiffs argue that A.D.J.'s causes of action are actually predicated on the theory that the advice that defendants gave to plaintiffs led directly to the delayed diagnosis and treatment of A.D.J.'s condition, and its consequent progression and worsening, the theory does not establish a malpractice cause of action, because defendants did not owe A.D.J. a duty when treating his older brother years before A.D.J. was conceived and born (see Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co., 77 N.Y.2d 377, 389, 568 N.Y.S.2d 550, 570 N.E.2d 198 [1991], cert denied 502 U.S. 868, 112 S.Ct. 197, 116 L.Ed.2d 157 [1991], citing Albala v. City of New York, 54 N.Y.2d 269, 445 N.Y.S.2d 108, 429 N.E.2d 786 [1981]). Under the circumstances, defendants who treated A.D.J.'s older brother owed no duty of care to A.D.J. (cf. Tenuto v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am. Cyanamid Co., 90 N.Y.2d 606, 612, 665 N.Y.S.2d 17, 687 N.E.2d 1300 [1997] [physician's duty of care expanded to nonpatient father whose infant received live polio vaccine but who was not advised of risks to himself of possible infection from vaccine] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 10896
Decided: January 28, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)