# Opinion

> District Court, E.D. New York · April 7, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11358708

## Case

- **Full name:** Louise Loria Hanel, as Executor of the Estate of Robert A. Loria, and Yvonne Maria Parson, as Executor of the Estate of James L. Hutcherson, Sr., for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New York State Veterans Home at St. Albans a/k/a NYS Veterans Home in NYC, Neville A. Goldson
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. New York
- **Decided:** April 7, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **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/11358708

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LOUISE LORIA HANEL, as Executor of the
Estate of ROBERT A. LORIA, and YVONNE
MARIA PARSON, as Executor of the Estate MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
of JAMES L. HUTCHERSON, SR., for Case No. 23-cv-08213-FB-CLP
themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

NEW YORK STATE VETERANS HOME AT
ST. ALBANS a/k/a NYS VETERANS
HOME IN NYC, NEVILLE A. GOLDSON,

Defendants.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs: For Defendant NYS Veterans Home:
JOSEPH CIACCIO STEPHEN M. JURIS
Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC JOSHUA D. ROTH
400 Broadhollow Road, Suite 305 BREANNA WEBER
Melville, NY 11747 Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza
WILBERT MENDEZ New York, New York
Wilbert Mendez 10004
P.O. Box 193773
San Juan, Puerto Rico For Defendant Neville A. Goldson
GREGORY JOHN RADOMISLI
Martin, Clearwater & Bell
220 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10028

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED.1 Plaintiffs have brought claims against the New
York State Veterans Home at St. Albans (the “State Home”), a state-owned and -run nursing
facility, and Neville A. Goldson in his capacity as administrator of the State Home. However,
states and their instrumentalities may not be sued in federal court unless they have waived their

Eleventh Amendment immunity or Congress has abrogated their immunity. Gollomp v. Spitzer,
568 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir. 2009); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662–63 (1974).
Here, there is no question that the State Home is an instrumentality of New York State. It
is owned by the State and operated by the New York State Department of Health (“NYSDOH”).
N.Y. Pub. Health L. § 403(1)(d) (establishing the State Home within the NYSDOH). Plaintiffs
concede as much in their complaint. Compl. ¶ 2 (“The New York State Veterans Homes are
publicly owned and operated[.]”). Courts in this circuit have not only concluded that NYSDOH
is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, see Gage v. New York State Dep’t of
Health, 204 F. Supp. 2d 399, 402 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), but also that this specific State Home is

immune. See Spooner-Mitchell v. New York State Veterans Home at St. Albans, No. CV-04-1266
(DGT), 2004 WL 7402964, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 18, 2004). And, as an officer of the State,
Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to Goldson as well. Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52,
57 (2d Cir. 1999) (“State immunity extends to state agencies and to state officers who act on
behalf of the state.”). Because the State has not consented to suit and Congress has not abrogated
its immunity, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes the Defendants and deprives the Court of
jurisdiction. See Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73, 120 S. Ct. 631, 640, 145 L. Ed. 2d

1 Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6), but because the Court concludes that
Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, it does not reach that part of the defendants’
motion.
522 (2000) (“[T]he Constitution does not provide for federal jurisdiction over suits against
nonconsenting States[.]”). Plaintiffs’ suit is hereby dismissed.
The Court also advises plaintiffs’ counsel to take particular heed of this ruling. The Court
understands that plaintiffs’ counsel has brought nearly identical claims in the past against another
State Home. Gille v. New York, No. 22-CV-02974 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2022) (Morrison, J.). In

that litigation, Judge Morrison advised plaintiffs’ counsel that he had “an ethical obligation to
dismiss” such claims because the Eleventh Amendment clearly immunized the defendants. Id.
Conf. Tr. Sept. 6, 2023, 11:17–20. This Court reminds counsel that he has an ethical obligation to
not bring legally baseless claims and advises him against continuing to pursue such claims in the
future. See N.Y. RPC 3.1 (“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or
controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not
frivolous.”).
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block___________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
April 7, 2026

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11358708. Public record. Not legal advice.