NJ court: Woman can't sue Nets CEO after abortion

Associated Press Modified: October 12, 2012 at 7:16 pm •  Published: October 12, 2012
Advertisement
;

Purcell's lawyers appealed, claiming the court misunderstood her claims. The lawsuit wasn't about the promise, the ruling said, but Yormark interfering with Purcell's "recognized reproductive liberties" by "maliciously and fraudulently commandeering and corrupting (her) protected right to wield control over her body and make her own reproductive choices."

The justices upheld the lower court's determination that "all of plaintiff's claims were based on defendant's promise to stay in her life, which is unenforceable," the justices wrote.

In a telephone interview, Purcell's lawyer, Barry D. Epstein, said his client and Yormark were named in lower court filings, but the appeals court used only their initials in the ruling.

Epstein said he is disappointed by the ruling.

"Notwithstanding the court's opinion, it was our collective view that we brought appropriate claims that should have been recognized," Epstein said. "They were admittedly novel, but we thought they were founded on proper legal principles."

Yormark's attorney, Jack Simons, praised the appellate panel for "in a very clear and succinct opinion, affirming the trial court decision referring to the plaintiff's claims as disingenuous and baseless."