Kass v. Kass
Decision Date | 07 May 1998 |
Citation | 696 N.E.2d 174,91 N.Y.2d 554,673 N.Y.S.2d 350 |
Parties | , 696 N.E.2d 174, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 4450 Maureen KASS, Appellant, v. Steven KASS, Respondent. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures are now more than two decades old and in wide use, this is the first such dispute to reach our Court. Specifically in issue is the disposition of five frozen, stored pre-embryos, or "pre-zygotes," 1 created five years ago, during the parties' marriage, to assist them in having a child. Now divorced, appellant (Maureen Kass) wants the pre-zygotes implanted, claiming this is her only chance for genetic motherhood; respondent (Steven Kass) objects to the burdens of unwanted fatherhood, claiming that the parties agreed at the time they embarked on the effort that in the present circumstances the pre-zygotes would be donated to the IVF program for approved research purposes. Like the two-Justice plurality at the Appellate Division, we conclude that the parties' agreement providing for donation to the IVF program controls. The Appellate Division order should therefore be affirmed.
Appellant and respondent were married on July 4, 1988, and almost immediately began trying to conceive a child. While appellant believed that, owing to prenatal exposure to diethylstilbestrol (DES) she might have difficulty carrying a pregnancy to term, her condition in fact was more serious--she failed to become pregnant. In August 1989, the couple turned to John T. Mather Memorial Hospital in Port Jefferson, Long Island and, after unsuccessful efforts to conceive through artificial insemination, enrolled in the hospital's IVF program.
Typically, the IVF procedure begins with hormonal stimulation of a woman's ovaries to produce multiple eggs. The eggs are then removed by laparoscopy or ultrasound-directed needle aspiration and placed in a glass dish, where sperm are introduced. Once a sperm cell fertilizes the egg, this fusion--or pre-zygote--divides until it reaches the four- to eight-cell stage, after which several pre-zygotes are transferred to the woman's uterus by a cervical catheter. If the procedure succeeds, an embryo will attach itself to the uterine wall, differentiate and develop into a fetus. As an alternative to immediate implantation, pre-zygotes may be cryopreserved indefinitely in liquid nitrogen for later use. Cryopreservation serves to reduce both medical and physical costs because eggs do not have to be retrieved with each attempted implantation, and delay may actually improve the chances of pregnancy. At the same time, the preservation of "extra" pre-zygotes--those not immediately implanted--allows for later disagreements, as occurred here.
Beginning in March 1990, appellant underwent the egg retrieval process five times and fertilized eggs were transferred to her nine times. She became pregnant twice--once in October 1991, ending in a miscarriage and again a few months later, when an ectopic pregnancy had to be surgically terminated.
Before the final procedure, for the first time involving cryopreservation, the couple on May 12, 1993 signed four consent forms provided by the hospital. Each form begins on a new page, with its own caption and "Patient Name." The first two forms, "GENERAL INFORMED CONSENT FORM NO. 1: IN VITRO FERTILIZATION AND EMBRYO TRANSFER" and "ADDENDUM NO. 1-1," consist of 12 single-spaced typewritten pages explaining the procedure, its risks and benefits, at several points indicating that, before egg retrieval could begin, it was necessary for the parties to make informed decisions regarding disposition of the fertilized eggs. ADDENDUM NO. 1-1 concludes as follows:
The "Additional Consent Form for Cryopreservation," a seven-page, single-spaced typewritten document, is also in two parts. The first, "INFORMED CONSENT FORM NO. 2: CRYOPRESERVATION OF HUMAN PRE-ZYGOTES," provides:
The second part, titled "INFORMED CONSENT FORM NO. 2--ADDENDUM NO. 2-1: CRYOPRESERVATION--STATEMENT OF DISPOSITION," states:
On May 20, 1993, doctors retrieved 16 eggs from appellant, resulting in nine pre-zygotes. Two days later, four were transferred to appellant's sister, who had volunteered to be a surrogate mother, and the remaining five were cryopreserved. The couple learned shortly thereafter that the results were negative and that appellant's sister was no longer willing to participate in the program. They then decided to dissolve their marriage. The total cost of their IVF efforts exceeded $75,000.
With divorce imminent, the parties themselves on June 7, 1993--barely three weeks after signing the consents--drew up and signed an "uncontested divorce" agreement, typed by appellant, including the following:
"The disposition of the frozen 5 pre-zygotes at Mather Hospital is that they should be disposed of [in] the manner outlined in our consent form and that neither Maureen Kass[,] Steve Kass or anyone else will lay claim to custody of these pre-zygotes."
On June 28, 1993, appellant by letter informed the hospital and her IVF physician of her marital problems and expressed her opposition to destruction or release of the pre-zygotes.
One month later, appellant commenced the present matrimonial action, requesting sole custody of the pre-zygotes so that she could undergo another implantation procedure. Respondent opposed removal of the pre-zygotes and any further attempts by appellant to achieve pregnancy, and counterclaimed for specific performance of the parties' agreement to permit the IVF program to retain the pre-zygotes for research, as specified in ADDENDUM NO. 2-1. By stipulation dated December 17, 1993, the couple settled all issues in the matrimonial action except each party's claim with respect to the pre-zygotes, which was submitted to the court for determination. While this aspect of the case remained open, a divorce judgment was entered on May 16, 1994.
In connection with the continuing litigation over the pre-zygotes, by letter dated January 9, 1995 the parties agreed that the matter should be decided on the existing record.
Supreme Court granted appellant custody of the pre-zygotes and directed her to exercise her right to implant them within a medically reasonable time. The court reasoned that a female participant in the IVF procedure has exclusive decisional authority over the fertilized eggs created through that process, just as a pregnant woman has exclusive decisional authority over a nonviable fetus, and that appellant had not waived her right either...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rora LLC v. 404 E. 79th St. Lender LLC
...provision must give that provision the construction which will carry out the parties' intent. Id. (quoting Kass v. Kass , 91 N.Y.2d 554, 567, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174 (1998) ).The language contained in the Settlement Stipulation is unambiguous — it has a "precise meaning, as to whic......
-
Viking Pump Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. . Warren Pumps Llc.
...496 n. 101 (Del.Ch.2008); Paddock v. Bay Concrete Indus., Inc., 154 So.2d 313, 316 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963); Kass v. Kass, 91 N.Y.2d 554, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174, 181 (1998). 40 Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 N.Y.3d 470, 475, 775 N.Y.S.2d 765, 807 N.E.2d 87......
-
Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P.
...matters of reproductive choice, where the intangible costs of any litigation are simply incalculable. Kass v. Kass , 91 N.Y.2d 554, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174, 180 (1998) (citation omitted).16 In Szafranski v. Dunston , the Appellate Court of Illinois held that the parties, Jacob and ......
-
TD Bank N.A. v. Hill
...out the plain purpose and object" of the contract and to give effect to the parties’ "over-all intention." Kass v. Kass , 91 N.Y.2d 554, 673 N.Y.S.2d 350, 696 N.E.2d 174, 181 (1998) (citation omitted). The agreement need not comply with any formalities or invoke particular language to const......
-
Genes, parents, and assisted reproductive technologies: arts, mistakes, sex, race, & law.
...against doctors and a fertility clinic in Rhode Island). (21.) See, e.g., A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000); Kass v. Kass 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998); J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001); Cahill v. Cahill, 757 So. 2d 465 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000); In re Litowitz 10 P.3d 1086 (Wash. C......
-
The Constitution and the rights not to procreate.
...1992). Finally, one court found such agreements enforceable, but the agreement in question mandated preembryo destruction. Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998). Florida has by legislation made these contracts enforceable, and provides that in the absence of "a written agreement, decisio......
-
Assisted reproductive technologies
...of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 2003); A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000); J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001); Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998); Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261 (Wash. 2002). 346 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW [Vol. 24:337 use embryos the ......
-
Straddling the Columbia: a Constitutional Law Professor's Musings on Circumventing Washington State's Criminal Prohibition on Compensated Surrogacy
...A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000). However, some courts say that such agreements should generally be binding. See Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998); Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App. 2006); Litowitz v. Litowitz, 48 P.3d 261 (Wash. 2002); Szafranski v. Dunston, 993 N.E......