Sahid v. Chambers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sahid v. Chambers

237 A.D.2d 175, 655 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 237 A.D.2d 175 (Sahid v. Chambers) 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

Sahid v. Chambers, 237 A.D.2d 175, 655 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 25, 1996, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause-of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff does not assert that defendants, his children’s treating psychiatrists, committed malpractice or that they physically kept them from him; nor does he. seek to alter the terms of his visitation or of the children’s treatment. Rather, he accuses defendants of having conspired with his ex-wife to "brainwash” the children against him so as to deprive him of his right to visitation, which, he claims, resulted in his suffering emotional distress and in defendants’ being unjustly enriched at his expense. Despite an effort to frame this accusation in terms of intentional and negligent interference with visitation rights, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and unjust enrichment, the pleading alleges nothing more than alienation of affections, which is expressly prohibited by Civil Rights Law § 80-a. We would also note that the negligence-based claims are insufficient, since "[a] physician’s duty of care [being] ordinarily one owed to his or her patient” (Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester, 72 NY2d 1, 9), defendants owed plaintiff no duty of care. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered March 25, 1996, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause-of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff does not assert that defendants, his children’s treating psychiatrists, committed malpractice or that they physically kept them from him; nor does he. seek to alter the terms of his visitation or of the children’s treatment. Rather, he accuses defendants of having conspired with his ex-wife to "brainwash” the children against him so as to deprive him of his right to visitation, which, he claims, resulted in his suffering emotional distress and in defendants’ being unjustly enriched at his expense. Despite an effort to frame this accusation in terms of intentional and negligent interference with visitation rights, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and unjust enrichment, the pleading alleges nothing more than alienation of affections, which is expressly prohibited by Civil Rights Law § 80-a. We would also note that the negligence-based claims are insufficient, since "[a] physician’s duty of care [being] ordinarily one owed to his or her patient” (Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester, 72 NY2d 1, 9), defendants owed plaintiff no duty of care. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 175, 655 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sahid-v-chambers-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack