# Public Admr. of Bronx County v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. > New York Supreme Court, New York County · June 25, 2025 · 2025 NY Slip Op 32272(U) URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087726 ## Case - **Court:** New York Supreme Court, New York County - **Decided:** June 25, 2025 - **Citations:** 2025 NY Slip Op 32272(U) - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion by Arthur F. Engoron - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11087726 ## Opinion text Public Admr. of Bronx County v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 32272(U) June 25, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 452724/2021 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 452724/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 227 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/27/2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON PART 37 Justice --------------------X INDEX NO. 45272412021 P\J8LlC ADMINISTRATOR OF BRONX COUNTY AS THE AOMlNlSTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF WlLLlE STACY, MOTION DATE 01117/2025 DECEASED, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 Plaintiff, ·V· DECISION + ORDER ON NEW YORK CITY HEALTH ANO HOSPITALS CORPORATION, MOTION Defendant The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number {Motion 004) 188, 189, 190, 191, 192. 193,194,195,196,197,198,199.200, 201.202,203,204,205.206.207,208,209,210,211,212, 213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222 223,224,225,226 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY Upon the foregoing documents. and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied. Backgroµmj This medical malpractice action arises out of treatment that defendants New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation rendered to decedent, Willie Stacy, from September 20, 2018 to October 25, 20 I 8. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. I. l 98. On September 20 and 25, 2018, the decedent suffered seizures. NYSCEF Doc. Nos, 191, 222. On October 25, 2018, decedent was discharged into hospice care at Goldcrest Care Center, and he passed away on the same day. NYSCEF Doc. No. I. On September 3, 2019, plaintiff, Public Administrator of Bronx County as The Administrator of the Estate of Willie Stacy, commenced the instant action, asserting two causes of action: (I) negligence and (2) ,vrongful death. NYSCEF Doc No, I. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendants negligently failed to prevent and treat decedent's pressure ulcers and that, as a result, decedent sustained injuries, such as infections and sores that Jed to his death. kl On October 14, 2022, Justice Erika Edwards granted in part defendant's motion to strike pleadings, precluding plaintiff from including allegations in its Supplemental Bill of Particulars, or in any subsequent Supplemental Bill of Particulars, that were not previously alleged in its Complaint or Notice of Claim. NYSCEF Doc. No, 84. Justice Edwards specHically barred; 45272412021 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF BRONX COUNTY, ET AL vs, NEW YORK CITY Page1 of4 HEALTH ANO HOSPITALS CORPORATION Mallon No. 004 [* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 452724/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 227 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/27/2025 a. allegations of intentional or fraudulent conduct related to nurses intentionally making false or inaccurate entries in the Decedent's medical records which were motivated by efforts to avoid Medicaid or Medicare reimbursement rules, however the court denies Defendants' request to preclude Plaintiffs from introducing evidence at trial about the motives for nurses making incorrect or inconsistent entries in the Decedent~s medical records, as such ruling would be premature; and b. allegations of failure to properly treat Decedent's diarrhea, influenza A, ESBL and pneumonia. On December 18, 2023, Justice Edwards denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding, inter alia, that plaintiffs expert (a nurse) was "'not competent" to opine as an expert in the instant action a.,; they are not a duly licensed physician, NYSCEF Doc, No. 181. Defendant now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for swnmary judgment dismissing the complaint or, in the event that the court does not grant summary judgment in its entirety, granting partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for wrongful death, NYSCEF Doc, Nos. 188, 189. In support, defendant submits an affirmation of medical expert, Dr. Alan Pollock, M.D,, opining, inter alia1 that decedent's condition had significantly deteriorated by the time of his admission and that decedent's death "resulted from consequences of his bacteremic urinary tract infection, multiple organ failure, multiple comorbidities, but not from pressure ulcers!' NYSCEF Doc. No. 190. Dr. PoHock further opines that more frequent turning and positioning by hospital staff would not have had any significant effect on [decedent's) skin breakdown, Additionally, Pollock opines that decedent "was already in end~stage renal failure on hemodialysis when he was admitted to Harlem Hospital. As such, he \Vas at risk for septic shock from a UTI not as a result of any departure in care but as a condition of the decedent's end stage renaJ failure with hemodialysls," ld. Pollock further opines that: decedent was "treated ln accordance with the applicable standards of care" as "[p]roper topical treatments were administered for these wounds, and their fuilure to heal was attributable to [decedent's] overall deteriorating condition"; that plaintiffs assertion that decedent's skin wounds became infected or caused sepsis is unsupported by the medical records; and that the acute cause of decedent's death was "septlc shock due to an E. coli urinary tract infection." Id, In opposition; plaintiff argues that there are issues of fact and cites Justice Edwards' December 18, 2023 Decision denying summary judgment. Plaintiff submits. inter alia, an expert affidavit from Dr. Afan J, Stein, a board-certified attending physician at The Brooklyn Hospital Center with a subspeclality certification in Infectious Diseases, who states, similarly to Dr. Pollock, that decedent died from a urinary tract infection which progressed to sepsis and septic shock NYSCEF Doc. No. 219. According to Dr. Stein. permitting said urinary tract infection to occur was a departure from standard care, as the nursing staff, "has the responsibitity of ... turning 452724/2021 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF BRONX COUNTY, ET AL V$. NEW YORK CITY Page 2 of-4 HEALTH ANO HOSPITALS CORPORATION Motton Ho. 004 [* 2] 2 of 4 INDEX NO. 452724/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 227 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/27/2025 patients every two (2) hours regardless of their position and keeping the patients clean after bowel movements!' Id. Dr. Stein further notes that decedent was allowed to lay in his own urine and fecal matter, which is known to cause not only pressure ulcers, which he eventually went on to develop in his sacra1 area, but urinary infections, which he developed and both experts agree caused his death from septic shock. Id. In rep]y, defendant argues that plaintiff's opposition impennissibly and fatally relies upon claims precluded. in the court's October 14. 2022 Decision and Order, which "clearly delineates 'allegations of failure to properly treat Decedent's diarrhea as a precluded claim. NYSCEF Doc. No.215. Discussion Pursuant to CPLR 3212, "[t]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case." Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr,, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). A defendant in a medical malpractice action establishes prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by showing that in treating the plaintiffj he or she did not depart from good and accepted medical pracdce, or that any such departure was not a proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries. Once a defendant meets that burde~ the plaintiff must rebut the prima facie showing via medical evidence attesting that the defendant departed from accepted medical practice and that such departure was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged, Generally, the opinion of a qualified expert that a plaintiffs injuries were caused by a deviation from relevant industry standards would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. To defeat summary judgment, the expert's opinion must demonstrate the requisite nexus between the malpractice allegedly committed and the harm suffered. Anyie B. v Br911x Lebanon Ho.Ill,, 128 AD3d I, 3 (1st Dept 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), Here, there is clearly a dispute between plaintiff's expert, Dr. Stein. who opines that patients need to be turned every two hours, and defendanfs expert, Dr. PoHock, who says that they do not need to be turned every two hours. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 190 and 219. The question then becomes whether plaintiffs opposition improperly relies upon a precluded claim. Defendant relies on the fact that Justice Edwards' October 14, 2022 Decision expressly barred "allegations of failure to properly treat Decedent's diarrhea, influenza A, ESBL and pneumonia," >which, defendant argues, is essentially what Dr. Stein alleges when he aflinns that decedent contracted E. Coli because his penile meatus was exposed to human stooL However, the claim 45272412021 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF BRONX COUNTY, ET AL vt, NEW YORK CITY P&ge3of4 HEALTH ANDHOSPJfALS CORPORATION Motion No. 004 [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 452724/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 227 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/27/2025 that Justice Edwards precluded is alleged negligence ln defendant's treatment of decedent's diarrhea, not whether bacteria found in decedent's stool caused his infection, which subsequently led to septic shock. Defendant's request, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's •.:vrongful death cause action should be denied, as the aHeged negligence in this case could potentially have led to decedent's death and, therefore, is a question of fact to be addressed at trial. Thus, the motion for summary judgement should be denied as to both causes of action. Diaz v NYU LanooneJ',led. Ctr., 192 AD3d 534,536 (1st Dept 2021) ("dueling expert opinions raise issues of fact and credibiHty that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment."). This Court has considered defendant's other arguments and finds them to be unavailing and/or non-dispositive. Conclusion Thus, the motion by defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, for summary judgment is hereby denied. 612512025 DATE ~ CHECKOHE: CA$e DISPOSED NOH"1W\L OISPOSITIOH GAANTED 0 Pft.!EO GAANTEO IN PART □ Ol't