Welter v Feigenbaum
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Welter v Feigenbaum 2013 NY Slip Op 30069(U) January 11, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 127969/02 Judge: Debra A. James Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: DEBRA A. JAMES PART 59 Justice LISA WELTER, Plaintiff , Index No,: -w- Motion Date: 127969/02 07/27/12 Motion Seq. No.: MICHAEL FEIGENBAUM, 009 Motion Cal. No.: Defendant. The following papers, numbered 1 to 3 were read on this motion for summary judgment. PGPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion -Affidavits -Exhibits Notice of Cross Motion/Answering Replying Affidavits - Exhibits * i Cross-Motion: Yes JAN q b No Upon the foregoing papers, Defendant moves, pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complairt or, in the alternative, for an order precluding plaintiff's expert from offering an expert opinion as to the causation of plaintiff's genital herpes or, directing a hearing to resolve this issue, pursuant to Frve v United States, 293 F 1013 (1923) ( E r y e hearing), Plaintiff alleges that she suffered personal injuries resulting from h a v i n g contracted the sexually transmitted disease Herpes Simplex Virus 11 (also referred to herein as HSV-2), which was negligently transmitted to her by defendant, when he engaged her in unprotected sexual. relations in 2002, when he knew or Check One: Check if appropriate: FINAL DISPOSITION 0 DO NOT POST ONON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 REFERENCE [* 2] should have known that he had HSV-2, and breached his duty to inform her of his status. The complaint alleges five causes of action: (I) battery; (2) negligent transmission of a sexual disease; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) fraud. It is defendant's position that the complaint should be dismissed in its entirety because there is no evidence that, at the time that the parties engaged in unprotected sexual activity, defendant knew or should have known that he was infected w i t h HSV-2. Defendant's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed. In order to recover damages for battery, plaintiff must prove that "there was bodily contact, that the contact was [nonconsensual], a n d that the defendant intended to m a k e the contact." Laurie Marie M. v J e f f r e v T . M . , 159 A D 2 d 52, 55 (2d Dept 1990), affd 77 NY2d 981 (1991). With respect to the element of consent, the tort of battery d i f f e r s from the abolished tort of seduction, which did not involve consent but was defined as a man's wrongful inducement of a woman to surrender to his sexual desires, See Coogersmith v Gold, 172 AD2d 982 (3d Dept 1991). In the case at bar, plaintiff admitted that she consented to have sexual contact with defendant, but asserts that she did n o t consent to acquire a sexually transmitted disease. -2- While [* 3] plaintiff's urging is tantamount to an argument about applying the concept of "informed consent" to her battery claim, this court finds no precedent for the application of the doctrine of informed consent as it relates to a battery c l a i m outside of the context of medical malpractice. See Public Health Law § 2805(d); Shack v Holland, 89 Misc29 78 (Kings Co Supreme C o u r t 1976). In order to maintain a cause of action for battery, plaintiff must provide evidence t h a t the sexual contact with defendant, as opposed to the consequences of such contact, was not consensual, which, by her own admission, she has failed to do. Hence, plaintiff's cause of action for battery is dismissed. The courts of this State have long recognized a cause of action for both intentional and negligent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. See White v Nellis, 31 NY 405 (1865); Matter of Plaza v Estate of Wisser, 211 AD2d 111 (l't Dept 1995). As in any negligence action, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff that was breached and that defendant's actions proximately caused the condition alleged. A duty to disclose has been held to exist w h e r e the defendant knew or should have known that he or she had a communicable disease. Id. at 119. In support of his motion, defendant submits the affirmation of his expert witness-- Andrew Stein, M . D . (Stein), a board certified physician in infectious disease and internal -3- [* 4] medicine. Among the records upon which Stein bases his opinions are the transcripts of the deposition testimony of the parties; Emergency Department and her admission there from September 29 through October 2, 2002; the narrative report dated October 25, plaintiff; the letter dated July 26, 2005 from Dr. Alan Pollock, an internist and infectious disease doctor who treated defendant from September 1, 1999 through October 21, 2009, arid medical record entries for his patient the defendant that he made between and including April 30, 2003 a n d October 21, 2009. As stated by Dr. Stein, plaintiff admits that she engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with at least six men by the time she had sex with defendant . . . she had unprotected sexual intercourse with (defendant) in or around May 2002, then reconciled with an e x boyfriend, with whom she had unprotected sexual intercourse in the summer of 2002 at least once, maybe twice . . . . (a n d had unprotected sexual intercourse with defendant) in September 2002, then in the latter part of September 2002 had the outbreak (of HSV-2). Dr. Stein opines that there is no documentation as to plaintiff s HSV-2 status before her first diagnosis on September 30, 2002 (ROSHAN, DANIEL F MD), 1.e. as of the time she had unprotected sexual intercourse with the ex boyfriend in summer avers that her negative PAP smears during such periods do not diagnosis. He states that though the first documented evidence -4- [* 5] of plaintiff's symptoms appear in her physician's records dated September 25, 2002, she may have been infected prior to that time because (M)any people remain asymptomatic or have unrecognized infection, thus facilitating transmission because the need for precaution is not obvious OF easily recognized. Overwhelmingly the disease is asymptomatic - up to 90% of people who have herpes are not aware... (that) they have the infection. ***Herpes that may lay dormant f a r years can become an outbreak when triggered by stress, illness, poor nutrition, menstruation, or vigorous sex. Dr. Stein notes that Dr. Shirazi opined that the incubation period, or period between herpes transmission and the start of herpes symptoms, is twelve w e e k s , and that according to that opinion, plaintiff "acquized the infection within 12 weeks of her symptoms" or between the end of June 2002 through September 2002. The laboratory report dated March 29, 2010 for defendant that was ordered by Shirazil shows that defendant tested 'In his answer, defendant states as an affirmative defense that "(i)n the event Feigenbaum w a s infected with genital herpes at the time he had sexual intercourse w i t h plaintiff, he had no knowledge that he was so infected and he was asymptomatic", thus putting his physical condition in issue. Michael Shirazi, a board certified physician in internal medicine, designated by plaintiff in connection with a physical examination of defendant sought by plaintiff pursuant to CPLR § 3121, drew a blood sample from defendant, which Shirazi sent to a virology lab for herpes testing. In his unsworn narrative report made pursuant to CPLR § 3121 (b) Shirazi concluded that: , Mr. Feigenbaum's serology was positive for antibody for HSV1 and HSV-2 by Western blot. This test is considered the Gold Standard when testing a person while asymptomatic for HSV-1 or HSV-2. This result firmly establishes that Michael Feigenbaum has both HSV-1 and HSV-2. -5- [* 6] p o s i t i v e f o r t h e a n t i b o d y t o HSV-1 a n d HSV-2, which i s e v i d e n c e o f p a s t i n f e c t i o n w i t h b o t h HSV-1 a n d H S V - 2 . With r e g a r d t o t h a t l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t , S t e i n o p i n e s t h a t T h e f a c t t h a t Feigenbaum t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r HSV-2 on 3/29/10 e i g h t ( 8 ) y e a r s a f t e r t h e i r s e x u a l e n c o u n t e r - i s o f no s c i e n t i f i c or m e d i c a l r e l e v a n c e t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h i s case. I n fact, i f o n e were s o p e r m i t t e d t o s p e c u l a t e under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e n g i v e n Feigenbaurn s l a c k of e v e r h a v i n g a n o u t b r e a k o r s i n g l e symptom p r i o r t o h i s e n c o u n t e r w i t h Welter, t h e n i t may be more l i k e l y t h a t Feigenbaurn c o n t r a c t e d t h e HSV-2 f r o m Welter. S t e i n concludes, that G i v e n t h i s t i m e l i n e , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o d i s c e r n which s e x u a l p a r t n e r ( i f i t were e i t h e r o f them) f r o m J u n e t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 2 may h a v e t r a n s m i t t e d t h e v i r u s t o (plaintiff). S t e i n p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t defendant was h a v i n g a n HSV-1 o u t b r e a k , w h i c h u s u a l l y o c c u r s a r o u n d t h e mouth o r f a c i a l r e g i o n , s u c h a s t h e l i p s , d u r i n g a n y of h i s e n c o u n t e r s with p l a i n t i f f , and S t e i n emphasizes t h a t p l a i n t i f f d o e s n o t c a r r y a d i a g n o s i s o f HSV-1. H e concludes t h a t t h e only way t o p r o v e t h a t p l a i n t i f f c o n t r a c t e d HSV-2 f r o m d e f e n d a n t would be i f t h e r e w a s some proof t h a t (1) d e f e n d a n t was p o s i t i v e for HSV-2 on t h e dates o f h i s s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h p l a i n t i f f , (2) t h e e x b o y f r i e n d w a s n e g a t i v e f o r HSV-2 on t h e d a t e s o f h i s s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h p l a i n t i f f , a n d ( 3 ) p l a i n t i f f was n e g a t i v e for HSV-2 p r i o r t o a n y of t h e s e e n c o u n t e r s . d e g r e e of m e d i c a l c e r t a i n t y , D r . Within a reasonable S t e i n states t h a t given t h e r e i s n o t h i n g p r o b a t i v e on a n y of t h e s e facts, no view of t h e e v i d e n c e -6- [* 7] would indicate that defendant knowingly transmitted the virus. Stein's opinion is not contradicted by Shirazi. Upon careful scrutiny, Shirazi's narrative report shows that he does conclude that defendant had genital herpes at t h e time that the parties engaged in unprotected s e x ; instead, Shirazi states only that if defendant had genital herpes at the time he and plaintiff had sexual intercourse, in a relationship lasting Over an eightmonth period, there is an 8% possibility that he cou1.d have infected plaintiff, However, there is no dispute that the sexual relationship between plaintiff and defendant, all tolled, took place for the month of May 2002 and over a two day period in September 2002, which based upon Shirazi's reasoning, would reduce the possibility of her contracting HSV-2 from defendant. Lastly, Shirazi opines that plaintiff "likely" acquired genital herpes within the 12 weeks prior to her diagnosis, but he does not opine that the source of the infection was defendant. Where the facts proven show that there are several possible causes of an injury, for one or more of which the defendant was not responsible, and it is just a s reasonable and probable that the injury was the result of one cause as the other, plaintiff cannot have a recovery, since [she] has failed to prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury. Even when there is no requirement for the plaintiff to exclude every other possible cause other than the defendant's breach of duty, t h e record must render the other possible causes sufficiently remote to enable the trier of fact to reach a verdict based upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence, not upon speculation [internal citations and quotation m a r k s omitted]. -7- [* 8] Montas v JJC Construction C o r p . , 92 AD3d 559, 5 6 0 ( l s tDept 2012); McNallv v Sabban, 32 AD3d 340 (1 Dept 2006); J.E. v Beth Israel Hospital, 295 AD2d 281 (1 Dept 2002). In the face of the sworn l a y and expert testimony and the r e c o r d s provided by defendant, plaintiff has raised no issue of fact as to either whether defendant was negligent or whether, even assuming arguendo that he was, such negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff s injuries. Nor more persuasive is plaintiff s argument that defendant s prior case of genital warts should have alerted him to the possibility that he was also infected with genital herpes. Such argument finds no medical or other support in the narrative report of Shirazi, plaintiff s expert. Stein s affirmation completely rebuts such assertion, by establishing that genital warts and genital herpes are very different viral conditions, stating that The Human Papillomavirus causes genital warts. The Herpes Simplex I1 virus causes genital herpes. He opines that there is no cause and effect relationship between defendant s genital warts diagnosed and treated by chemical destruction in 2001 [see Invoice of Dr. Alvin E. Friedman-Klein with entry 6/11/01 Destruct w a r t s , penile, exten.,. and Health Insurance Claim Form dated June 10, 2002 with entry DIAGNOSIS VIRAL WARTS ] and the HSV-2 condition with which plaintiff was diagnosed in 2002, and with which defendant was diagnosed eight -8- [* 9] years after his genital warts condition had resolved. Based on all of the preceding, plaintiff's cause of action f o r intentional transmission of a sexually transmitted disease is dismissed. In order to sustain a cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove: (I) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and the injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress. Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]." Cohn-Frankel v United Svnauoque of Conservative Judaism, 246 AD2d 332, 332 (I" Dept 1998). "Unlike other intentional torts, intentional infliction of emotional distress does n o t proscribe specific con.duct ... but imposes liability based on after-the-fact judgments about the actor's behavior." Howell v New York Post Companv, Inc., 81 NY2d - 115, 122 (1993). In the instant matter, as discussed above, there is no evidence that defendant knew, or should have known, that he was asymptomatic f o r genital herpesb2 Therefore, his having sexual intercourse with plaintiff does not rise to the level of 'It is ironic that plaintiff admits to having unprotected sex without informing her partners of her medical status, after her diagnosis of HSV-2, the conduct of which she compl.ains about defendant, but without the requisite proof that he knew or should have known that he was asymptomatic. -9- [* 10] outrageous conduct. As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff's cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress is dismissed. Similarly, plaintiff's cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress is also dismissed, since plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant knew, or should have known, that he had genital herpes prior to having sex with plaintiff. Indeed, plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant was even infected with genital herpes at the time that they had their relationship, since he was only tested and diagnosed with HSV-2 e i g h t years after the fact. claim cannot be sustained on mere speculation. A negligence See Affenito v PJC 90th Street LLC, 5 AD3d 243 ( l S t Dept 2004) Lastly, plaintiff's cause of action f o r fraud is likewise dismissed. In order to make out a prima facie claim of fraud, in the context of a sexually transmitted disease, there must be an actual awareness of infection. Wisser, 211 A D 2 d 111, s u p r a . See Matter of Plaza v Estate of Plaintiff has offered no evidence, in either admissible or inadmissible form, that substantiates her allegation that defendant knew, or should have known, about the possibility that he was infected with genital herpes. In fact, there is no evidence that defendant had genital herpes or -10- [* 11] experienced any symptoms of that disease in 2002 or prior to his encounters with plaintiff, so there was no misrepresentation for him to make in that regard. Therefore, based on the above, plaintiff's cause of action for fraud is dismissed. Defendant's alternate requests for relief are hereby rendered moot. is dismissed, with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment as aforesaid. P DEBRA A. JAMES -11- J.s . c.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
