CHRISTOPHER v. NYACK HOSPITAL ABC (2018)

To commence the statutory time period for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513[a]), you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties.

DECISION & ORDER

Plaintiff commenced the within action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained arising out of an incident that took place on January 16, 2017 wherein Plaintiff, Christopher J., a nineteen year old with special needs, was allegedly assaulted by hospital staff and/or security while lawfully on hospital premises. Plaintiff asserted eight causes of action including, inter alia, assault, battery, negligence and, as is relevant here, violations of Social Services Law § 493(4)(B). Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment with respect to the fifth and sixth causes of action which allege violations of Social Services Law § 493(4)(B). Defendants  ¹ cross-move for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of the same causes of action. Defendants also move for an order dismissing the complaint as against Plaintiff, Sabrina B., in her individual capacity, and a stay of the proceedings. The Court has considered the following papers on the motions:

1. Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support and Exhibits A and B attached thereto;

2. Defendants' Notice of Cross-Motion, Horowitz Affirmation and Exhibits A through C attached thereto, Matejicka Affidavit and Memorandum of Law;

3. Plaintiffs' Affirmation in Opposition and Exhibits A and B attached thereto;

4. Defendants' Reply Affirmation and Exhibits A and B attached thereto;

5. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Affirmation in Further Opposition and Exhibits C and D attached thereto; and

6. Defendants' Supplemental Affirmation.

Turning first to Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the fifth and sixth causes of action alleging violations of Social Services Law § 493(4)(B), Plaintiff contends that summary judgment is warranted based on the finding by the Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs substantiating the allegations of physical abuse and deliberate inappropriate use of restraints of Plaintiff by a staff member of Defendants. See, Plaintiffs' Exhibit B. Defendants oppose the granting of partial summary judgment in Plaintiffs' favor and argue, inter alia, that Social Services Law § 493(4)(B) does not create a private right of action. According to Defendants, summary judgment as to the fifth and sixth causes of action should be granted as to them.

It is well-settled that “[i]n determining whether a private right of action for money damages exists for violation of a New York State statute, [the Court of Appeals] has established a three-part test: ‘(1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme.’ ” Mark G. v. Sabol, 93 NY2d 710, 719 (1999), quoting, Sheehy v. Big Flats Community Day, 73 NY2d 629, 633 (1989). This Court opines that the first two prongs of the test have been satisfied, i.e., that Plaintiff is in the class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted and a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose. The question becomes whether the third prong has been satisfied. This Court finds that it is not.

Social Services Law § 488, et seq., the Protection of People with Special Needs Act,

was enacted to create a set of uniform safeguards to bolster the protection of people with special needs․ To implement those safeguards, the Act created the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs, an agency empowered to receive, investigate, and respond to allegations of abuse, neglect, or other “reportable incidents” involving disabled residents receiving services in licensed facilities or provider agencies. Among other things, the Justice Center maintains a statewide central register - the Vulnerable Persons' Central Register - which operates a 24-hour hotline created to field allegations of reportable incidents. Upon receipt of an allegation, the Justice Center must promptly commence an investigation, or it may delegate its investigatory responsibility to an oversight agency or to the facility or provider agency.

Matter of Anonymous v. Molik, — NY3d —, 2018 NY Slip Op 04779 (2018). In other words, the Protection of People with Special Needs Act is a statute that was created to ensure that “reportable incidents” are investigated and documented. If the New York State Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (hereinafter “the Justice Center”), after investigation, finds a “substantiated” report of abuse, the statute provides for a number of consequences which may be levied against either the “abuser” or the facility or provider agency. The statute provides no specific relief to the victim upon a “substantiated” finding of abuse. Thus, it is the opinion of this Court that Social Services Law § 493(4)(B) does not create a private cause of action and as such, summary judgment in favor of Defendants thereby dismissing the fifth and sixth causes of action is warranted.

With respect to that aspect of Defendants' motion seeking an order dismissing Sabrina B., individually, as a Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendants' motion should be granted. Having reviewed the Verified Complaint, the only allegations made by Plaintiff individually are in the third cause of action for false imprisonment wherein she alleges that she was unlawfully denied access to her son. See, Plaintiffs' Exhibit A at ¶¶ 71-73. Based on these allegations alone, Sabrina B. has not set forth any a cause of action applicable to her individually.

Lastly, as to Defendants' motion to stay the within action pending a final determination of their administrative appeal of the Justice Center's “substantiated” finding of abuse, Defendants' motion is denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as to the fifth and sixth causes of action is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment as to the fifth and sixth causes of action is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' cross-motion for an order dismissing the Plaintiff, Sabrina B., individually, is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendants' cross-motion for a stay of the within action is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   For the purposes of the within motions, “Defendants” refers to Montefiore Nyack Hospital f/k/a The Nyack Hospital, the Medical-Dental Staff of Nyack Hospital, Inc., Nyack Hospital Foundation and Michael Levy, M.D.

Rolf M. Thorsen, J.