Callistro v. Bebbington
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kershaw v. Hospital for Special Surgery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Kershaw v. Hospital for Special Surgery (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Bivona v. Gupta (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Marino v. New York & Presbyt. Hosp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Miranda v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2025)
- Page v. Niagara Falls Mem. Med. Ctr. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Nahigian v. Kaplitt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Montilla v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Brooks v. April (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Manuel H. v. Landsberger (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Pancila v. Romanzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Robinson v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Robinson v. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Barrocales v. New York Methodist Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Barrocales v. New York Methodist Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether defendants’ alleged malpractice in failing to perform a caesarean section rather than a vaginal delivery was the cause of the child’s alleged cognitive, receptive, and expressive deficits and developmental disability.
Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.