Callistro v. Bebbington

New York Court of Appeals

Callistro v. Bebbington

982 N.E.2d 81, 20 N.Y.3d 945

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 11, 2012·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants’ alleged malpractice in failing to perform a caesarean section rather than a vaginal delivery was the cause of the child’s alleged cognitive, receptive, and expressive deficits and developmental disability.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants’ alleged malpractice in failing to perform a caesarean section rather than a vaginal delivery was the cause of the child’s alleged cognitive, receptive, and expressive deficits and developmental disability.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.

Callistro v. Bebbington, 982 N.E.2d 81, 20 N.Y.3d 945 (N.Y. 2012).

Pincite

982 N.E.2d 81 (Callistro v. Bebbington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related