Gaviria v Sapphire Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing of Central Queens, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Nursing home liability and COVID-19 immunity under the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) at the pleading stage.
The Supreme Court granted defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion [rule allowing dismissal for failure to state a cause of action], finding EDTPA immunity barred the claims and that the complaint failed to plead gross negligence.
The Appellate Division reversed and denied the CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion, reinstating the amended complaint.
Although EDTPA (Public Health Law former art 30-D, §§ 3080–3082) [emergency statute granting COVID-19-related immunity to health care facilities/professionals when three conditions are met and excepting gross negligence or reckless misconduct; repealed Apr. 6, 2021] was not retroactively repealed, defendants did not conclusively establish all statutory predicates for immunity, and the complaint sufficiently alleged gross negligence; therefore dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.
Background
Plaintiff's mother resided at Sapphire from July 2017 until her death on April 6, 2020 from COVID-19. Plaintiff, individually and as administrator of the estate, sued for negligence and gross negligence relating to her care. Defendants moved to dismiss, invoking EDTPA immunity and arguing the complaint did not plead gross negligence.
Lower Court Decision
By order entered August 11, 2023, the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), holding EDTPA immunity barred the claims and that the amended complaint's allegations did not rise to gross negligence.
Appellate Division Reversal
Applying the liberal construction standard for CPLR 3211(a)(7) and the rule that dismissal based on evidentiary submissions is warranted only if they conclusively negate any cause of action, the court held: (1) the EDTPA's repeal is not retroactive; (2) defendants' submissions did not conclusively establish the three statutory requirements for EDTPA immunity as to decedent's care; and (3) accepting the allegations as true and affording every favorable inference, the amended complaint adequately pleads gross negligence. Accordingly, the order was reversed and the motion to dismiss denied.
Legal Significance
Confirms that while EDTPA repeal is nonretroactive, defendants bear a heavy burden to secure dismissal at the pleading stage based on EDTPA immunity. Where factual disputes exist over the statute's predicates or the complaint plausibly alleges gross negligence, immunity cannot be resolved on a CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion.
At the pleadings stage, nursing homes cannot obtain EDTPA-based dismissal unless the record conclusively establishes all statutory conditions for immunity and negates plausible gross negligence allegations.