Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.


Justice Sproat

PLAINTIFF’S CHILD was conceived by artificial insemination of donor sperm. At the time of insemination, defendant boyfriend, who is not the child’s biological father, allegedly signed a “Consent for Artificial Insemination” which plaintiff claimed created an enforceable contract for child support. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s contractual breach action for his failure to provide support. Despite finding that the document appeared to be a “consent in writing” referenced in Domestic Relations Law §73, the court found the statute to be inapplicable because the parties were not married to each other. The court held the parties’ agreement void for vagueness and unenforceable. Citing Bernstein v. Felske and Mocca Lounge v. Misak, it declined to supply material terms missing from the agreement, finding their omission “too great” and “too noticeable” and that the risk of ensnaring defendant in contractual obligations that he never knowingly assumed was “too serious.”

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.