Byington v North Sea Associates, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home liability for COVID-19-related injuries and the scope of immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA).
The trial court denied the nursing home’s motion to dismiss under Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a), concluding the EDTPA’s repeal was retroactive and that immunity did not bar the claims.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the CPLR 3211(a) motion and dismissed the complaint.
The court held the repeal of the EDTPA (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080-3082 [immunity for harm from acts/omissions in arranging or providing health care services during the COVID-19 emergency if (1) services were provided pursuant to a COVID-19 emergency rule or applicable law; (2) the act/omission was impacted by COVID-19 response decisions in support of State directives; and (3) services were arranged/provided in good faith; with exceptions for willful/intentional criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or intentional infliction of harm]) is not retroactive. The defendant’s documentary evidence established that the three EDTPA criteria were satisfied and no exception applied. The plaintiff’s gross negligence allegations were conclusory and insufficient under CPLR 3211(a)(7) [failure to state a cause of action], and the defendant’s materials also warranted dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1) [documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiff’s allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law].
Background
The decedent resided at the defendant nursing home from October 2019 to June 2020, allegedly contracted COVID-19 there, and died on June 15, 2020. The plaintiff, as administrator, sued for violation of Public Health Law § 2801-d, wrongful death, and gross negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a), asserting immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). The plaintiff argued the April 2021 repeal of the EDTPA applied retroactively. The Supreme Court denied the motion; the defendant appealed. The plaintiff did not file a brief on appeal.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (Suffolk County) denied the defendant’s CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss, accepting the plaintiff’s position that the EDTPA repeal applied retroactively and declined to apply immunity at the pleading stage.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing, the Appellate Division held the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive and that the defendant’s evidence (affidavit of its acting director of nursing in 2020, COVID-19 policies and protocols, Department of Health directives, and the decedent’s progress notes) established the three EDTPA prerequisites to immunity. The court found no applicable EDTPA exception because the plaintiff’s assertions of gross negligence, reckless, or intentional misconduct were bare legal conclusions lacking factual specificity. Alleged pre-pandemic regulatory violations were either conclusory or refuted by the defendant’s infection-control policies. The court granted the CPLR 3211(a) motion and dismissed the complaint.
Legal Significance
Confirms within the Second Department that the EDTPA repeal is not retroactive and that nursing homes remain immune from civil liability for COVID-19-era care if the statute’s three conditions are met and no exception applies. It underscores that conclusory gross negligence allegations are insufficient at the pleading stage and that documentary evidence can establish immunity under CPLR 3211.
For COVID-19-era claims against New York nursing homes, EDTPA immunity still applies to pre-repeal conduct; plaintiffs must plead concrete, non-conclusory facts showing willful or grossly negligent misconduct to overcome immunity, or their cases risk dismissal on a CPLR 3211 motion.