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

Opinion

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