From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Broadnax v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-01547

Submitted March 28, 2003.

April 28, 2003.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.), dated June 21, 2001, which, upon granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiffs' case at a jury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Margaret C. Jasper, South Salem, N.Y., for appellants.

Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy Bach, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel S. Ratner of counsel; Daryl Paxson on the brief), for respondent Frederick A. Gonzalez.

Marulli Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Lisa L. Gokhulsingh of counsel), for respondent C.N.M. Georgia Rose.

Charles E. Kutner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Bruce E. Friedrich of counsel), for respondent A Shared Beginning: The Westchester Birth Center, Inc.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

There is an absence of evidence that the plaintiff mother suffered a physical injury distinct from the injury to her unborn child and separate and apart from that which occurs in any normal childbirth. Thus, she may not recover damages for the psychological and emotional harm she allegedly suffered as a result of the stillbirth of her child (see Tebbutt v. Virostek, 65 N.Y.2d 931, 932-933; Vaccaro v. Squibb Corp., 52 N.Y.2d 809). Further, the plaintiffs may not recover under a zone of danger theory (see Tebbutt v. Virostek, supra at 932).

The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see Riet v. Marion Ct. Equities Corp., 229 A.D.2d 480, 481; Lancellotti v. Howard, 155 A.D.2d 588, 589-590).

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, CRANE and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Broadnax v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 28, 2003
304 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Broadnax v. Gonzalez

Case Details

Full title:KAREN BROADNAX, ET AL., appellants, v. FREDERICK A. GONZALEZ, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 28, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 781 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 499

Citing Cases

Cunningham v. Lempke

Because the Montgomery County prosecution with respect to those charges is a nullity, a retrial on those…

Broadnax v. Gonzalez

The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Broome County (Phillip R. Rumsey, J.; op 2002…