Millender-Rubin v Rubin

Holding The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s order by denying the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment awarding her exclusive possession of the cryopreserved embryos. The court determined that neither party established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they failed to identify which specific IVF cycle produced the disputed embryos or submit the corresponding cryopreservation agreement.

The court’s words

neither party established the agreement that was made with respect to the embryos in dispute

2026 NY Slip Op 05780, at the official text

any reliance on the March 2023 agreement is misplaced, as the March 2023 agreement was entered into in contemplation of embryos forming from the March 2023 IVF cycle

2026 NY Slip Op 05780, at the official text

There are triable issues of fact as to whether the embryos in dispute are from the November 2021 IVF cycle or a combination of the October 2021 IVF cycle and the November 2021 IVF cycle

2026 NY Slip Op 05780, at the official text

the parties' failure to establish from which IVF cycle the disputed embryos derived and to submit an agreement that provides for the cryopreservation and disposition of the embryos formed in the November 2021 IVF cycle precludes the award of judgment as a matter of law

2026 NY Slip Op 05780, at the official text