Costiera v MMR Care Corp.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Healthcare/nursing home COVID-19 liability immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA).
The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the defendant’s CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss.
The denial of the motion to dismiss was reversed; the complaint was dismissed.
Defendant was entitled to EDTPA immunity under Public Health Law former § 3082(1) [temporary COVID-19 immunity for health care facilities if three conditions are met], its submissions showed compliance with state directives and good-faith pandemic response, and plaintiff failed to plead gross negligence with factual specificity; any pre-pandemic negligence claims were conclusory or refuted by documentary evidence under CPLR 3211(a)(1) [procedural rule allowing pre-answer dismissal based on documentary evidence] and (a)(7) [failure to state a cause of action].
Background
Plaintiff, as administrator of the decedent’s estate, sued a rehabilitation facility alleging the decedent contracted COVID-19 there (residency December 2019–March 2020) and died on April 11, 2020. Causes of action included violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d [creates a private right of action for nursing home residents for deprivation of rights], negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death. Defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) [procedural rule allowing pre-answer dismissal based on documentary evidence and for failure to state a cause of action], asserting immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080–3082 [temporary COVID-19-related immunity for health care providers meeting specified conditions], repealed by L 2021, ch 96, § 1).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Nassau County (Muraca, J.), denied the defendant’s CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss the complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed on the law, with costs; the Appellate Division granted the defendant’s CPLR 3211 motion and dismissed the complaint. The court held the EDTPA’s three prerequisites for immunity were satisfied based on defendant’s COVID-19 policies, state DOH/HHS directives, and the decedent’s medical records; no EDTPA exception applied. Plaintiff’s gross negligence allegations were bare legal conclusions lacking factual specificity, and any pre-pandemic negligence allegations were either conclusory or disproven by documentary evidence.
Legal Significance
Confirms that EDTPA immunity can be resolved on a CPLR 3211 motion where documentary evidence shows compliance with state COVID-19 directives and good-faith provision of care, and that plaintiffs must plead detailed, non-conclusory facts to invoke the gross negligence exception. Reinforces a high pleading bar for early-pandemic healthcare claims notwithstanding EDTPA’s subsequent repeal.
To overcome EDTPA immunity, plaintiffs must allege particularized facts of gross negligence; conclusory allegations will not survive CPLR 3211 dismissal, especially where defendants submit policies, directives, and records showing compliance with COVID-19 emergency rules and good-faith care.