Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Wrongful Adoption Suits and Damages
Would-be adoptive parents generally look for a child they think will fit comfortably into their families. The child that will make the 'best fit' is not the same for each family, so potential adoptive parents want a say in who will become a part of their lives. In order to make these choices, those considering adoption usually ask about ' and are told ' any available information on the social and health histories of the child and of his or her family. When this information is withheld, a claim for 'wrongful adoption' may follow.
Wrongful adoption claims have only in recent years been recognized as viable tort actions in New York State. The First Department was the first New York court to recognize the cause of action, characterizing it as 'the extension of common-law fraud principles to the adoption setting.' Juman v. Wise Servs., 159 Misc. 2d 314, 317 (1st Dept. 1995). Thus, adoptive parents seeking to recover damages for wrongful adoption must prove the elements of common-law fraud: 1) that defendant made a representation as to a material fact or concealed a material fact; 2) that such representation was false and known by the defendant to be false, or was made recklessly; 3) that defendant intended to deceive plaintiff and to induce the plaintiff to act upon the misrepresentation; 4) that plaintiff justifiably relied upon the statement; and 5) as a result of such reliance, plaintiff sustained injury. Orbit Holding Corp. v. Anthony Hotel Corp., 121 AD2d 311; Lukowsky v. Shalit, 110 AD2d 311. Plaintiffs must also file within the 6-year statute of limitations deadline set by CPLR 213 (8), or if they did not discover the fraud until later, file within 2 years from the time the fraud was discovered or should have been discovered (CPLR 203 (g)).
In those instances where adoptive parents have been permitted to seek recovery from adoption agencies for fraudulent concealment of a child's medical or psychological history, the recovery had been, until this spring, limited to pecuniary losses directly attributable to the alleged fraud. See, eg, Juman v. Louise Wise Servs., 211 AD2d 446, 447 (1995). The reason for this restriction is that New York's courts treat wrongful adoption actions as analogous to wrongful life actions (see, eg, Becker v. Schwartz, 46 NY2d 401) in that in either case it would be purely speculative for a court to try to decipher whether the emotional stress parents suffered in raising the impaired child outweighed the emotional benefits of the parent-child relationship.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.