Goldstein v. Ob-Gyn Associates

170 A.D.2d 374
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 26, 1991·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered December 12, 1989, which, inter alia, dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for emotional injuries and loss of consortium, and allowed plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint asserting a claim for pecuniary damages only, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Howard v Lecher (42 NY2d 109) bars plaintiff Dorie Gold-stein’s recovery of damages for mental anguish arising from her delivery of a child afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease. The only viable cause of action which may be stated is one for the recovery of pecuniary damages arising out of defendants’ malpractice, if any. (Becker v Schwartz, 46 NY2d 401.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

Goldstein v. Ob-Gyn Associates, 170 A.D.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

170 A.D.2d 374 (Goldstein v. Ob-Gyn Associates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Andrews v. Keltz
15 Misc. 3d 940 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
Paretta v. Medical Offices for Human Reproduction
195 Misc. 2d 568 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)
Juman v. Louise Wise Services
174 Misc. 2d 49 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)