The erroneous report of an HIV positive finding following blood analysis is a "`special circumstance'" that provides assurance that a claim to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of the erroneous report is genuine and not spurious, and therefore plaintiff's claim may be maintained ( Johnson v. State of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 378, 382). It is clear that the defendants who handled the blood sample and issued the erroneous report owed a duty of care, under the circumstances herein, to this plaintiff, even in the absence of a direct relationship with him ( supra, at 382-383; see, McKinney v Bellevue Hosp., 183 A.D.2d 563, 565-566). Since the so-called Execumed defendants, enumerated above, had no connection to the vials of blood giving rise to the erroneous result, we modify to grant their cross-motion to dismiss.
We have considered the remaining defendants' additional contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.