Berna Lee v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home liability for COVID-19-era care and the scope of Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) immunity and gross negligence pleading standards.
The Supreme Court granted a motion under CPLR 3211 [rule allowing pre-answer dismissal for failure to state a cause of action] and dismissed the complaint, holding the defendants were immune under the EDTPA and that the complaint did not allege gross negligence.
The order granting defendants' CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss was reversed; the motion to dismiss was denied.
Defendants did not conclusively establish all three statutory prerequisites for EDTPA immunity, and the complaint sufficiently alleged conduct constituting gross negligence. Although the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive, defendants failed to show entitlement to immunity on a CPLR 3211 record.
Background
The decedent, plaintiff's mother, resided at Sapphire from January 2018 until April 2020, when she was transferred to a hospital, tested positive for COVID-19, and died two months later. Plaintiff, individually and as administrator, sued for negligence and gross negligence based on the decedent's care. Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211, asserting immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082) [enacted to broadly protect health care facilities and professionals from liability for COVID-19 treatment during the public health emergency, conditioned on compliance with emergency rules/law, pandemic-related impact on treatment, and good faith, and excluding acts of gross negligence or reckless misconduct, with a carveout for resource/staffing shortages].
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the CPLR 3211 motion, holding EDTPA immunity applied and that the allegations did not rise to gross negligence; the complaint was dismissed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive but found defendants' submissions did not conclusively establish the statute's three immunity elements as to the decedent's care. Accepting the complaint's allegations as true, the court further held the pleading adequately alleged gross negligence. The order was reversed and the motion to dismiss denied.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that while EDTPA immunity remains available for pre-repeal conduct, defendants bear the burden on a CPLR 3211 motion to conclusively demonstrate each statutory element; otherwise, claims—including those alleging gross negligence—survive. Reiterates the liberal pleading standard and the limited role of defense submissions at the 3211(a)(7) stage.
EDTPA immunity is not self-executing on a motion to dismiss; absent conclusive proof of all statutory prerequisites, and where gross negligence is sufficiently alleged, COVID-19-era nursing home claims proceed despite the statute’s non-retroactive repeal.