## Facts

- Peter Lucia died at a New York hospital, and his widow directed that his kidney(s) be donated to Robert Colavito, a friend suffering from end-stage renal disease.
- The New York Organ Donor Network (NYODN) evaluated the kidneys and concluded they were a workable match for Colavito.
- NYODN sent one kidney to a Miami hospital where Colavito awaited transplant; the other kidney remained in New York.
- During surgical preparation, the Miami surgeon found an aneurysm in the sent kidney’s renal artery and deemed it unsuitable for transplantation.
- The surgeon immediately requested the other kidney but learned NYODN had allocated it to another recipient earlier that day.
- Testing later showed a positive cross-match between Colavito and the donor, which the surgeon testified would have prevented successful transplantation of either kidney.
- Colavito sued NYODN and others for fraud, conversion, and violations of New York Public Health Law Articles 43 and 43-A; the federal district court granted defendants summary judgment.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning conversion/property rights in organs and whether Articles 43 and 43-A provide a private right of action.

## Issues

1. Whether a specified organ donee acquires a property or possessory interest sufficient to sue for conversion when the organ is provided to another recipient.
2. Whether New York Public Health Law Articles 43 and 43-A create an express or implied private right of action for a specified donee against an organ procurement organization and related actors.
3. Whether any asserted common-law or statutory right depends on the organ being medically suitable for transplantation into the specified donee.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals answered the certified questions in the negative on these facts.
- The court held that Colavito could not maintain a conversion claim because he lacked a protectable interest in an organ that was medically unsuitable for him due to incompatibility.
- The court held that Articles 43 and 43-A did not provide Colavito a private right of action under the circumstances presented, particularly where the organ could not have been successfully transplanted into him.
- The incompatibility (positive cross-match) was treated as dispositive because it meant Colavito could not have benefitted from either kidney.

## Legal Principles

- A conversion claim requires a plaintiff to have an ownership or superior possessory right in the property and to show wrongful dominion by the defendant.
- New York law recognizes only limited, noncommercial interests in human remains; it does not generally treat transplantable organs as ordinary property for broad private tort recovery.
- A specified donee does not have a conversion claim for diversion of an organ that is not medically suitable for that donee’s transplantation.
- Public Health Law Articles 43 and 43-A regulate anatomical gifts through a comprehensive statutory scheme and do not, on these facts, imply a private damages action for an intended recipient.
- In assessing an implied private right of action, courts consider the protected class, statutory purpose, and consistency with the legislative scheme; implying a private remedy is disfavored where it would conflict with a detailed regulatory structure and its allocation objectives.

## Conclusion

The court held that an intended organ recipient could not recover for conversion or under New York’s organ-donation statutes when medical incompatibility meant the donated kidneys could not have been successfully transplanted into him, and the statutory scheme did not support a private damages remedy in that setting.


Colavito v. N.Y. Organ Donor Network, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 43, 860 N.E.2d 713 (2006)