You are here: / / PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME ALLEGED DEFENDANT “THIRD-PARTY” BREACHED...

PLAINTIFF NURSING HOME ALLEGED DEFENDANT “THIRD-PARTY” BREACHED OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT CONCERNING PAYMENT OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE RESIDENT; THE NURSING HOME’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Miller, determined plaintiff nursing home’s motion for summary judgment in this breach of contract action should not have been granted and defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the action for “breach of a contractual duty to cooperate” should have been granted. The contract at issue is the nursing home’s admission agreement, which includes obligations imposed upon defendant “third-party” in connection with paying for the costs incurred by the resident of the nursing home. The opinion is fact-specific and analyzes the breach of contract allegations as they relate to specific provisions in the admission agreement. The analysis is too detailed to fairly summarize here. The court described the salient issues as follows:

Under state and federal law, a nursing facility is prohibited from requiring a third party to guarantee the payment of a resident as a condition of the resident’s admission to the facility. As this case illustrates, however, a nursing facility is permitted to require a third party to undertake other kinds of contractual obligations, and a nursing facility may recover damages that were proximately caused by a failure of the third party to fulfil those obligations. Where it is alleged that a variety of different contractual obligations have been breached, each such theory of liability must be proved, defended, and analyzed independently. Where an admissions agreement containing pages of third-party obligations is both a requirement for admission and aggressively enforced, the fine legal distinctions between an unlawful third party guarantee and a lawful agreement laden with additional affirmative obligations may have little practical significance for the third party. This is especially true where, as here, the nursing facility’s litigation is directed solely at the third party, and recovery is not sought from the estate of the actual resident of the nursing facility. Wedgewood Care Ctr., Inc. v Kravitz, 2021 NY Slip Op 04731, Second Dept 8-18-21​

 

You might also like
Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted
AUDIOTAPES OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE PATERNAL GRANDMOTHER AND THE CHILD WERE PROPERLY SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PRODUCT OF ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING UNDER CPLR 4506 (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S VISITATION RIGHTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED WITHOUT A HEARING, UNTESTED EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT CONFERENCES NOT SUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
A DANGEROUS CONDITION, A DOOR WHICH SWUNG CLOSED ABRUPTLY, IS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF; TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DOOR, THE DEFENDANT MUST SUBMIT EVIDENCE THE DOOR WAS INSPECTED OR MAINTAINED AND FOUND SAFE CLOSE IN TIME TO THE INJURY; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT SUCH EVIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS STATUTORY RAPE CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Sentencing Court Must Place on the Record Its Reasons for Denying Youthful Offender Status
TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT.
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING... SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 77, PROPERLY RESOLVED THE DISTRIBUTION...