Rodriguez v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Epstein

244 A.D.2d 202, 664 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11389

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 202 (Rodriguez v. Epstein) 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

Rodriguez v. Epstein, 244 A.D.2d 202, 664 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered June 7, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action, which is based on plaintiff’s lack of informed consent to an abortion performed by defendant, was properly [203]*203dismissed on the ground that Public Health Law § 2805-d does not require physicians to refer patients to counseling on alternatives to abortion or to provide such counseling to patients seeking elective abortions (see, Perez v Park Madison Professional Labs., 212 AD2d 271, 274; compare, Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 US 833, 881-885, 902).

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and in the circumstances find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered June 7, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action, which is based on plaintiff’s lack of informed consent to an abortion performed by defendant, was properly [203]*203dismissed on the ground that Public Health Law § 2805-d does not require physicians to refer patients to counseling on alternatives to abortion or to provide such counseling to patients seeking elective abortions (see, Perez v Park Madison Professional Labs., 212 AD2d 271, 274; compare, Planned Parenthood v Casey, 505 US 833, 881-885, 902).

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and in the circumstances find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 202, 664 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack