From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cheryl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Summary

In Irwin v. Mucha, 545 N.Y.S.2d 863 (App. Div. 1989), the defendant pulled his car forward and ran over the plaintiff's foot just after the plaintiff had alighted from the car and before she had closed the left rear door.

Summary of this case from Gray v. Wackenhut Services

Opinion

October 6, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J.

Present: Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs. morandum: The application of the Director of the Newark Developmental Center seeking permission to have respondent sterilized should have been denied.

The evidence at the hearing did not meet the regulatory standard that sterilization may be performed only when medically required to save a client from danger of death or serious physical illness (see, 14 NYCRR 633.11 [a] [3]). There was evidence that it is standard medical practice to discontinue the use of oral contraceptives of women over 40 years of age because there is an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure in women over that age. In our view, however, that evidence is insufficient to prove that sterilization of respondent was required to save her from danger of death or serious physical injury.


Summaries of

Matter of Cheryl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 6, 1989
154 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

In Irwin v. Mucha, 545 N.Y.S.2d 863 (App. Div. 1989), the defendant pulled his car forward and ran over the plaintiff's foot just after the plaintiff had alighted from the car and before she had closed the left rear door.

Summary of this case from Gray v. Wackenhut Services
Case details for

Matter of Cheryl

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of CHERYL O

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

Date published: Oct 6, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 863

Citing Cases

Matter of B

(Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479 [1965]; Eisenstadt v Baird, 405 US 438 [1972].) Thus the guardian for a…

In the Matter of the Guardianship of B

Thus the guardian for a mentally retarded person should have an equal right to consent to a tubal ligation or…