Harris v. Rizkalla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. Rizkalla

120 A.D.2d 492, 501 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56564

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 5, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 492 (Harris v. Rizkalla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Rizkalla, 120 A.D.2d 492, 501 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based upon medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated February 19, 1985, as, upon reargument, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth causes of action against him.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs do not, in fact, seek recovery of child-rearing [493]*493expenses by way of the fifth and sixth causes of action sounding in contract, and, indeed, concede that such recovery in connection with a failed vasectomy is impermissible under New York law whether the claim sounds in contract or in tort (see, O’Toole v Greenberg, 64 NY2d 427). Since the defendant does not otherwise challenge the legal sufficiency of the contract pleaded herein, dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action was properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based upon medical malpractice, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Aronin, J.), dated February 19, 1985, as, upon reargument, denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ fifth and sixth causes of action against him.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs do not, in fact, seek recovery of child-rearing [493]*493expenses by way of the fifth and sixth causes of action sounding in contract, and, indeed, concede that such recovery in connection with a failed vasectomy is impermissible under New York law whether the claim sounds in contract or in tort (see, O’Toole v Greenberg, 64 NY2d 427). Since the defendant does not otherwise challenge the legal sufficiency of the contract pleaded herein, dismissal of the fifth and sixth causes of action was properly denied. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 492, 501 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-rizkalla-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack