Majority
Order unanimously affirmed with
It is well settled that there may be no recovery "for the loss of offspring, as such” (Endresz v Friedberg, 24 NY2d 478 , 488; see, Hahn v Taefi, 115 AD2d 946 , 947). Thus, plaintiff may not recover for the effect of her alleged sterility in depriving her of children or of their companionship (see, Hahn v Taefi, supra, at 947 ). Recovery may be had, however, for physical and mental injuries, including emotional distress, suffered by plaintiff as a consequence of defendants’ breach of duty (see, Tebbutt v Virostek, 65 NY2d 931 ; Hahn v Taefi, supra, at 947 ). Consequently, if plaintiffs alleged sterile condition resulted from injuries that she suffered as a consequence of defendants’ malpractice, she may recover not only for the physical injuries inflicted but also for the mental and emotional distress attending those injuries (see, Endresz v Friedberg, supra, at 487 ; Hahn v Taefi, supra, at 947 ). (Appeals from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Cases cited
- Endresz v. Friedberg 24 NY2d 478 at 488 p. 829
- Hahn v. Taefi 115 AD2d 946 at 947 p. 829