Page 12 - WCBA CLE 6-14-2022

11

Wedgewood Care Center, Inc. v Kravitz, 198 AD3d 124 [August 18, 2021][Justice
Miller, opinion; Justices Chambers, Duffy, Christopher concur]:

HOLDING ON APPEAL: The Supreme Court should have denied summary judgment
to the plaintiff in an action by a private nursing home to recover against a third party
under the terms of an admission agreement which was signed by the third party, a
relative of the resident, as a condition of the resident’s admission to the nursing home.

The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment
dismissing so much of the complaint as alleged a breach of a contractual duty to
cooperate with plaintiff and third-party payers.

Here, the plaintiff's submissions did not establish that the defendant had possession or
control over any document or information requested by plaintiff and the plaintiff did not
establish that defendant breached the admission agreement by failing to use his access
to assets that were available to the deceased resident to compensate plaintiff for
services rendered to the deceased resident. The defendant used at least a portion of
the deceased resident's assets to set up an irrevocable trust to pay the deceased
resident's funeral expenses. On his motion, the defendant established that his alleged
failure to provide documentation or information did not cause or contribute to the non-
payment of the plaintiff’s fees and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in
opposition.

FACTS: The plaintiff, a private corporation engaged in the business of providing room,
board, and skilled nursing home care services, commenced this breach of contract
action against the defendant, the son of a deceased resident to whom the plaintiff
provided nursing care services. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the
complaint and for entry of judgment for $49,061.11, the alleged “balance” for their
services. The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s motion and separately moved for
summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a
cause of action, or in the alternative, dismissal on the basis that the defendant
demonstrated he did not possess legal access or control over the deceased resident’s
assets or documents.

th
Lennon v 56 and Park(NY) Owner, LLC, 199 AD3d 64 [Sept 15, 2021][Justice
Dillon, opinion; Justices Austin, Duffy, Barros concur]:

HOLDING ON APPEAL: The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in
granting the defendants' motion for leave to amend their answer to the second
amended complaint to include the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel because

3