Wenny Ho, etc., et al. v. Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC, et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether a nursing home and its personnel are immune from civil liability under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether the complaint sufficiently pleads gross negligence at the CPLR 3211 stage.
The Supreme Court, Queens County granted the motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], finding EDTPA immunity and insufficient allegations of gross negligence.
The order dismissing the amended complaint.
Although the repeal of the EDTPA is not retroactive, defendants did not conclusively establish the statute’s three prerequisites to immunity under Public Health Law former § 3082(1) [enacted to broadly protect health care facilities/professionals from civil liability for COVID-19-related care impacted by the emergency, conditioned on compliance with emergency rules and good faith, with an exception for gross negligence/reckless misconduct; staffing/resource shortages are not gross negligence], and the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence when construed liberally.
Background
The decedent resided at Sapphire from January 2017 until her death from COVID-19 on April 9, 2020. The decedent’s daughter (individually and as administrator) and husband sued for negligence and gross negligence related to the decedent’s care. Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), asserting immunity under the EDTPA and arguing the complaint failed to allege gross negligence.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County granted dismissal, holding that the EDTPA immunized defendants from liability and that the allegations did not rise to gross negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed. The appellate court held the EDTPA’s repeal is not retroactive but defendants’ submissions did not conclusively establish the statute’s immunity criteria under Public Health Law former § 3082(1). Accepting plaintiffs’ allegations as true and affording all favorable inferences, the amended complaint adequately alleged gross negligence. The motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) was denied.
Legal Significance
Confirms EDTPA repeal is not retroactive, but emphasizes that on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, defendants bear a heavy burden to conclusively prove all EDTPA immunity prerequisites; where disputed facts remain and gross negligence is adequately alleged, dismissal is improper at the pleading stage.
EDTPA (Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act) immunity cannot be assumed at the pleading stage; defendants must conclusively show all statutory conditions, and well-pleaded gross negligence claims will defeat dismissal even though the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive.