Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Maureen Kass v. Steven Kass

New York Court of Appeals
91 N.Y.2d 554 (1998)


Facts

Almost immediately after getting married, Maureen Kass (plaintiff) and Steven Kass (defendant) began trying to conceive a child. After several unsuccessful attempts to do so, the couple enrolled in a hospital’s in vitro fertilization (IVF) program. As a result of the IVF program, Maureen became pregnant twice, each failing to result in a successful birth. Just prior to the final procedure, the couple signed several consent forms which provided the risks and benefits of the procedure as well as required Maureen and Steven to express their desire related to disposition of excess fertilized eggs, or “pre-zygotes,” that were to be frozen. After a final unsuccessful attempt to become pregnant, the couple decided to divorce. In the uncontested divorce agreement, the couple agreed that neither party would lay claim to the five frozen pre-zygotes. Instead, they agreed that the pre-zygotes would be used for research by the hospital. However, Maureen later changed her mind and sought custody of the pre-zygotes so that she could undergo another implantation procedure. Steven objected that he did not want to be the genetic father and counterclaimed for specific performance of the parties’ agreement to allow the hospital to retain the pre-zygotes for research as specified in their signed consent forms. All issues related to the divorce were finalized except for disposition of the pre-zygotes. The trial court granted custody of the pre-zygotes to Maureen with approval to implant them within a medically reasonable time. The appellate division reversed and held that the couples’ consent document was controlling. Maureen appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Kaye, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.