Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New York opinions name it 5 courts 2024–2026 11 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Whitehead v. Pine Haven Operating LLCgreen2 sentences2026In that decision, the court found that defendant's submissions demonstrated its entitlement to EDTPA immunity and that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see generally Estate of Middleton v CLR Troy LLC , 247 AD3d 1422, 1423-1424 [3d Dept 2026]; Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC , 222 AD3d 104, 109 [3d Dept 2023]). 2026In that decision, the court found that defendant's submissions demonstrated its entitlement to EDTPA immunity and that plaintiff had failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition ( see generally Estate of Middleton v CLR Troy LLC , 247 AD3d 1422 , 1423-1424 [3d Dept 2026]; Whitehead v Pine Haven Operating LLC , 222 AD3d 104, 109 [3d Dept 2023]). | 2 | 5 |
Godfrey v. Spanogreen2 sentences2026Neither of plaintiff's remaining claims for gross negligence and pre-COVID negligence — the only claims which would otherwise survive EDTPA immunity — are supported by more than "bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity" as required to survive defendant's motion to dismiss ( Godfrey v Spano , 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]; see Byington v North Sea Assoc., LLC , 244 AD3d at 1179; Costiera v MMR Care Corp. , 244 AD3d at 1182; Estate of Pierro v Carmel Richmond Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ctr. , 241 AD3d at 647; Hyman v Richmond Univ. 2026Neither of plaintiff's remaining claims for gross negligence and pre-COVID negligence — the only claims which would otherwise survive EDTPA immunity — are supported by more than "bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity" as required to survive defendant's motion to dismiss ( Godfrey v Spano , 13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]; see Byington v North Sea Assoc., LLC , 244 AD3d at 1179; Costiera v MMR Care Corp. , 244 AD3d at 1182; Estate of Pierro v Carmel Richmond Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ctr. , 241 AD3d at 647; Hyman v Richmond Univ. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Grimaldi v. Suffolk County Dept. of Healthgreen2 sentences2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). 2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145 , 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Fusco v. Town of Coloniegreen2 sentences2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). 2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145 , 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Kalvaitisgreen2 sentences2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145, 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). 2026Defendant has therefore received all the relief which it seeks by way of this appeal ( see Fusco v Town of Colonie , 196 AD3d 956, 957 [3d Dept 2021]; Rafferty Sand & Gravel, LLC v Kalvaitis , 116 AD3d 1290, 1291 [3d Dept 2014]; cf. People v Clark , 239 AD3d 1145 , 1146 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Grimaldi v Suffolk County Dept. of Health , 210 AD3d 1263, 1264 [3d Dept 2022]). | 1 | 1 |
English v. Wainco Goshen 1031, LLCgreen2 sentences2025The plaintiff's contention that the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it qualified for EDTPA immunity, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Porth v Maio , 228 AD3d 709, 710; English v Wainco Goshen 1031, LLC , 218 AD3d 444, 445). 2025The plaintiff's contention that the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it qualified for EDTPA immunity, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court ( see Matter of Porth v Maio , 228 AD3d 709, 710; English v Wainco Goshen 1031, LLC , 218 AD3d 444, 445). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ruth v. Elderwood At Amherst
green
2 sentences2024Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 35 NY3d at 384), we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive ( see Ruth v Elderwood at Amherst , 209 AD3d at 1291 ). ( Id . at 109.) In Whitehead , the Third Department articulated as follows the logical underpinning for its determination that the nursing home is entitled to immunity under the EDTPA, warranting the dismissal of plaintiff's suit, including plaintiff's cause of action for gross negligence notwithstanding the statutory carveout to EDTPA immunity for claims of gross negligence, owing to the Third Department 2024Co., LLC v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal , 35 NY3d at 384), we hold that the repeal of the EDTPA was not retroactive ( see Ruth v Elderwood at Amherst , 209 AD3d at 1291 ). ( Id . at 109.) In Whitehead , the Third Department articulated as follows the logical underpinning for its determination that the nursing home is entitled to immunity under the EDTPA, warranting the dismissal of plaintiff's suit, including plaintiff's cause of action for gross negligence notwithstanding the statutory carveout to EDTPA immunity for claims of gross negligence, owing to the Third Department | 4 | 2024–2024 |
Mera v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
green
2 sentences2025These immunities applied as long as three conditions were met: (1) the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID- 19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; (2) the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State's directives; and (3) the services were arranged or provided in good faith (Mera, 220 AD3d at 669 ). 2025These immunities applied as long as three conditions were met: (1) the services were arranged for or provided pursuant to a COVID- 19 emergency rule or otherwise in accordance with applicable law; (2) the act or omission was impacted by decisions or activities that were in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the State's directives; and (3) the services were arranged or provided in good faith (Mera, 220 AD3d at 669 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Pichardo v. Herrera-Acevedo
green
2 sentences2025Normally, proximate cause is an important element of a medical malpractice case ( see Belotti v Northern Westchester Hospital , 230 AD3d 461 [2d Dept 2024]; Pichardo v Herrera-Acevedo , 77 AD3d 641 [2d Dept 2010]). 2025Normally, proximate cause is an important element of a medical malpractice case ( see Belotti v Northern Westchester Hospital , 230 AD3d 461 [2d Dept 2024]; Pichardo v Herrera-Acevedo , 77 AD3d 641 [2d Dept 2010]). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.