New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Health Law § 4306 (2026)

Rights and duties at death

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 4306. Rights and duties at death.  1. The donee may accept or reject
the gift. If the donee accepts a gift of the entire body, the donee may,
subject to the terms of the gift, authorize embalming and the use of the
body in funeral services. If the gift is of a part of the body, the
donee upon the death of the donor and prior to embalming, may cause the
part to be removed without unnecessary mutilation. After removal of the
part, custody of the remainder of the body vests in the surviving
spouse, next of kin, or other persons under obligation to dispose of the
body.
  2. When a donor is determined dead based on irreversible cessation of
circulatory and respiratory functions, the time of death shall be
certified by a physician. Such physician may not participate in the
procedure to remove or transplant the body part. In all other cases the
time of death shall be certified by the physician who attends the donor
at his death and one other physician, neither of whom shall participate
in the procedure for removing or transplanting the part.
  3. (a) (i) A person who acts in good faith in accord with the terms of
this article or with the anatomical gift laws of another state, is not
liable for damages in any civil action or subject to prosecution in any
criminal proceeding for his or her act.
  (ii) A person who acts in good faith in accord with the anatomical
gift laws of another country is not liable for damages in any civil
action or subject to prosecution in any criminal proceeding for his or
her act provided that:
  (A) such country has anatomical gift laws similar in requirements and
effects to the anatomical gift laws of this state;
  (B) such country appears on a list of such countries promulgated as a
regulation by the department for such purpose; and
  (C) such country appeared on such list at the time of such act.
  (b) A person who documents the making, amending or revoking of an
anatomical gift, acting reasonably and in good faith in accordance with
this article, may accept an anatomical gift under this article made by a
person who represents that the person is an authorized person under
section forty-three hundred one of this article and is entitled to
consent to the donation.
  (c) An entity under section forty-three hundred two or forty-three
hundred ten of this article or a health care professional, or an agent
or employee thereof, who or which documents, records, recovers,
procures, obtains, or utilizes an organ or tissue in reasonable and good
faith reliance on information provided to or contained in the New York
state donate life registry shall not be liable in any civil or criminal
action or proceeding for action based on such reliance.
  4. Any employee or agent of an organ procurement organization, eye
bank or tissue bank acting pursuant to this article shall be held to the
same standard of confidentiality as that imposed on employees of a
hospital.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 860 N.E.2d 713 (NY 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 860 N.E.2d 713 (NY 2006). “He further asserts that the incorporated language of Public Health Law § 4306 (3) creates not a qualified immunity, requiring dismissal unless plaintiff can prove bad faith, but merely an affirmative defense, as to which defendants have the burden of proof — a burden he says…”

Colavito v. New York Organ Donor Network, Inc., 438 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “” N.Y. Public Health Law § 4306 (3). It thus seems to contemplate that private lawsuits will be used to vindicate rights in anatomical gifts.”

Nicoletta v. Rochester Eye & Human Parts Bank, Inc., 136 Misc. 2d 1065 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987). · cites it 2× “They seek such relief on the ground that the affirmative defense under Public Health Law § 4306 (3) has been established by uncontroverted facts, as a matter of law.”

People v. Batjer, 77 A.D.3d 1279 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “Defendant further contends that the indictment should be dismissed pursuant to the “good faith” exception set forth in Public Health Law § 4306 (3). We reject that contention.”

People v. Knapp, 79 A.D.3d 1805 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · cites it 4× “Defendant likewise failed to preserve for our review her contention that she should have been permitted to assert Public Health Law § 4306 (3) as a “complete defense” to her prosecution under Public Health Law article 42 inasmuch as she failed to raise that contention either in…”

Anaya v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 24223 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024). · cites it 2× “" The Gift Act immunity provision on which NYU relies is set forth as follows under Public Health Law § 4306 (3)(a)(i): A person who acts in good faith in accord with the terms of this article or with the anatomical gift laws of another state, is not liable for damages in any…”

In re Human Tissue Litig., 38 Misc. 3d 184 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “New York Anatomical Gift Act, Public Health Law § 4306 The Anatomical Gift Act good faith exception from liability codified in Public Health Law § 4306 (3) states that “[a] person who acts in good faith in accord with the terms of this article or with the anatomical gift laws of…”

Drever v. State, 45 Misc. 3d 224 (2014). · cites it 2× “Defendant argues that even if the court were to find that it is negligent, it is also immune from liability because it exercised good faith in accordance with Public Health Law § 4306. However, in claimant’s opposition papers, claimant argues that defendant’s reliance upon the…”

Anaya v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 30563(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024). “Public Health Law § 4306 -b states as follows: This section applies in cases where a prospective donor who has made an anatomical gift or whose donation status has not been ascertained is in a hospital.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.