Mwandisha Rivera, Plaintiff, v. Doral Health & Wellness, Defendants. (2026)

Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review:

NYSCEF #s: 49-62, 64-73, 75

Defendant Doral Health & Wellness moves for an Order, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary judgment in their favor and dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint against them. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

For procedural background, Plaintiff commenced this action on March 6, 2023, asserting claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and negligent hiring, training and supervision against the sole defendant Doral Health & Wellness. Plaintiff's claims arise from dialysis treatment on March 23, 2022, which she alleges led to a fistula and infection at the dialysis needle site. The moving defendants Doral Health & Wellness contend that they are an improperly sued entity, and that Plaintiff received dialysis treatment from a different facility they did not own, manage, or operate.

In June 2025, Plaintiff moved by Order to Show Cause, seeking to amend the caption to substitute "Doral Medical and Multi Specialty Facility LLC" in place of Doral Health & Wellness." Plaintiff's counsel affirmed that Doral Health & Wellness was "incorrectly named" in the original Complaint. They argued that the entity's correct business name was "Doral Medical and Multi Specialty Facility LLC," and the amendment of the caption would merely be a "correction of misnomers."

In opposition to that prior motion, Defendant's counsel conceded that "Doral Health & Wellness is the assumed name of Doral Medical and Multi Specialty Facility LLC." However, they argued that the treatment at issue in fact took place at nonparty Doral Dialysis LLC, a separate limited liability company from Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC.

The Court notes that in Plaintiff's own attorney affirmation in reply to the prior motion dated August 11, 2025, Plaintiff conceded that "the evidence establishes that plaintiff received treatment at Doral Dialysis LLC, and that Doral Dialysis LLC is indeed a separate legal entity from both Doral Health & Wellness and Doral Medical and Multi Specialty Facility LLC (NYSCEF Doc. 43 [emphasis added]).

Plaintiff's counsel further stated that "plaintiff agrees with defendant's position that Doral Dialysis LLC is the proper defendant in this action, as it is the entity that provided the medical treatment forming the basis of this lawsuit. Plaintiff then requested leave from the court to amend the caption to name "Doral Dialysis LLC" as defendant in place of the existing corporate defendant, and to amend the caption accordingly.

In an Order dated August 13, 2025, the former assigned justice, Hon. Ellen M. Spodek, found that Plaintif's reply acknowledged "that the treatment at issue was rendered by Doral Dialysis LLC, a separate and distinct entity from Defendant." Upon consideration of the papers and oral argument, the court denied the motion to amend the caption and pleadings, stating that "the amended caption sought would constitute a substitution of a new party defendant after expiration of the applicable statute of limitations."

Now, Defendant Doral Health & Wellness moves for summary judgment on the grounds that they bear no liability for the subject treatment in this action.

In support of their motion, Defendants cite the aforementioned procedural history and Plaintiff's admissions that they were the wrongly named business entity, "a separate and distinct" company from Doral Dialysis LLC.

The movants also provide supporting documentation to argue they are a separate business entity which cannot be held liable for the alleged malpractice of Doral Dialysis LLC and its employees and agents. Their submissions establish that Doral Medical and Multi Speciality Facility LLC is an operating legal entity which does business as "Doral Health & Wellness," demonstrated by their Articles of Organization and Certificate of Assumed Name. Doral Dialysis LLC is registered as a separate limited liability company.

Finally, the movants submit a personal affidavit from Daniel Gurgov, the Chief Operating Officer of Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC. He avers that the business has a principal office at 1797 Pitkin Avenue and provides multi-specialty medical services and referrals, but they "do not render or control dialysis services." He further avers that upon a records search, they have "no record of any dialysis-related encounter, treatment, procedure, cannulation, fistula creation or revision, dialysis orders, dialysis nursing notes, dialysis consents, dialysis imaging, or dialysis-related follow-up on or about March 23, 2022, or at any time," nor any billing records related to dialysis.

The Court notes that Plaintiff previously sought to amend the caption in this action when Doral Dialysis LLC was identified as the proper entity. Had that application been granted, Plaintiff would have essentially discontinued their claims against Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC and substituted Doral Dialysis LLC as the intended defendant. However, that motion was denied upon the court's finding that these were distinct corporate entities and not merely a corrected misnomer or alter ego for the named defendant. The prior assigned justice found that the statute of limitations had expired and substituting a new party defendant in this manner was improper.

The movants further provided a personal affidavit and other exhibits to establish that they are not liable for any alleged malpractice in dialysis treatment which occurred on March 23, 2022. The record is clear that Doral Dialysis LLC is a separate entity and not an alternate business name for Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC. Generally, even if it were established that these companies had a parent/subsidiary relationship, "a parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts or obligations of a subsidiary unless it can be shown that the parent exercised complete dominion and control over the subsidiary" (Mitchell v TAM Equities, Inc., 27 AD3d 703, 708 [2d Dept 2006]; Potash v Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 279 AD2d 562, 562 [2d Dept 2001]). Defendants have demonstrated that they maintained no medical or billing records for the dialysis treatment that is the subject of this action, and that they have never provided any dialysis treatment to Plaintiff.

Based on the documentary evidence, the personal affidavit of the Defendant's COO, and the prior decision and admissions of Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendants have established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff's claims against them.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there are issues of fact as to the "operational relationship" and "identity, ownership, occupancy, control, branding, and public-facing presentation of the medical facility" where Plaintiff received dialysis treatment, which may confer vicarious liability to Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC.

Plaintiff submits her complete medical records from Doral Health & Wellness, which do not include the March 23, 2022 dialysis appointment. It is not disputed that Plaintiff's received general outpatient care at Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC, and her records include numerous references to her renal disease. However, even in the medical records submitted by Plaintiff, there are entries stating the patient had "blood work at Dialysis Center and she will bring in a copy of the result," evincing the separation between the dialysis providers and general outpatient treatment.

As Defendants note in their reply, Plaintiff did not "identify any document from Defendant stating that Defendant provided dialysis services." There is no evidence of any blood work, nursing notes, consent forms, billing entries, or other records related to the March 23, 2022 dialysis in Plaintiff's medical records from Doral Health & Wellness. For these reasons, the Court finds Plaintiff's argument as to the "operational relationship" between the named defendant and Doral Dialysis LLC is entirely speculative and lacks any evidentiary support. Plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendant exercised actual "dominion and control" over the other entity to give rise to vicarious liability.

Plaintiff also argues that Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC may be vicariously liable through a theory of apparent or ostensible agency, citing the well-established line of cases holding that a hospital may be vicariously liable where a patient seeks treatment "through the emergency room seeking treatment from the hospital and not from a particular physician of the patient's choosing" (Muslim v Horizon Med. Group, P.C., 118 AD3d 681, 683 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 NY2d 72 [1986]; Mduba v Benedictine Hosp., 52 AD2d 450 [3d Dept 1976]). These cases involving a hospital or clinic's liability for private physicians are not applicable to the facts herein.

Plaintiff submits a personal affidavit stating she did not distinguish between the entities, due to the common "Doral" name and use of the same building for dialysis and other treatment. Apparent agency must be grounded in the injured party's reliance on "some misleading words or conduct by the principal, not the agent" (Valerio v Liberty Behavioral Mgt. Corp., 188 AD3d 948, 949 [2d Dept 2020]). The Court finds that Plaintiff's affidavit does not raise any issue of fact that Defendant Doral Health & Wellness/Doral Medical LLC held out the dialysis center or specific dialysis providers as their agents.

Finally, Plaintiff argues in opposition that the motion is premature. The Court rejects this argument, as well as their informal request for further discovery.¹ "The mere hope or speculation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be uncovered during the discovery process is insufficient to deny the motion" (Romano v Welsbach Electric Corp., 246 AD3d 843, 844 [2d Dept 2026]; Savage v Quinn, 91 AD3d 748, 750 [2d Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Plaintiff raises only speculative arguments and broad requests for discovery which are insufficient to defeat Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED that Defendant Doral Health & Wellness's motion (Seq. No. 4) for summary judgment is granted, and the action is dismissed.

The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of DORAL HEALTH & WELLNESS.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

ENTER.

Hon. Consuelo Mallafre Melendez

J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Plaintiff's counsel states that they "acknowledge that a Note of Issue has been filed," although a review of court records indicates that this Note of Issue was returned for correction as defective.

Consuelo Mallafre Melendez, J.