Practice point: New York courts have been
reluctant to recognize claims grounded in negligence when the damages are
solely emotional. While in some cases a cause of action sounding in negligence
may lie solely to recover damages for emotional injuries in the absence of
physical harm, no New York case
has recognized a theory of recovery so broad as the plaintiff asserted here.
Essentially, the plaintiff contended that she is entitled to recover damages
for emotional distress, because, as a result of the defendant's alleged
negligent failure to inform her that the she was pregnant, she feared that her
unborn child might be harmed. No such claim is recognized under New
York, and the complaint was dismissed for failure to
state a cause of action.
Student note: A court deciding a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action must accept the allegations
in the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff every possible favorable
inference from them. The motion must be granted when the allegations and
inferences do not fit within any cognizable legal theory.
Case: Nadal v. Jaramillo, NY
Slip Op 00314 (2d Dept. 2013).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Changing venue.
