United States District Court, E.D. New York
Offices of Jean Bruno Attorneys for the Plaintiff By:
Jean-Philippe G. Bruno, Esq., Of Counsel.
Catalano Gallardo & Petropoulos, LLP Attorneys for the
Defendant Sunharbor Manor Comprehensive Rehabilitation &
Skilled Nursing By: Domingo R. Gallardo, Esq. William L.
Schleifer, Esq., Of Counsel.
Attorney's Office, Eastern District of New York Attorneys
for the Defendants U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services and Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services By:
Robert B. Kambic, Assistant U.S. Attorney.
First Plans & Insurance Defendant.
D. SPATT United States District Judge.
December 8, 2015, the Estate of Hermann Rene (the
“Estate”) filed a complaint alleging that, after
sustaining serious personal injuries in a fall, Mr. Rene (the
“Decedent”) was admitted to a facility run by the
Defendant Sunharbor Manor Comprehensive Rehabilitation and
Skilled Nursing (“Sunharbor”), in order to
receive medical care and rehabilitation.
to the complaint, between October 3, 2013 and December 19,
2013, the Decedent received the appropriate treatment and
rehabilitation. However, at some point in December 2013,
Sunharbor allegedly determined that the Decedent had become
unresponsive to treatment and/or that he had exhausted the
limits of his insurance coverage. Accordingly, Sunharbor
allegedly discontinued its treatment of the Decedent, which
resulted in various additional injuries, and eventually, the
these general facts, the complaint alleged a multitude of
legal theories sounding in negligence; medical malpractice;
wrongful death; violations of New York Public Health Law
§ 2803-c and its implementing regulations; unlawful
imprisonment; breach of contract; intentional interference
with a contractual relationship; malicious interference with
contract rights; and promissory estoppel.
August 8, 2016, the Estate filed a so-called “Motion to
Stay, ” which consisted solely of: (1) a copy of the
original complaint filed eight months earlier; and (2) a
legal memorandum. Although no affidavit or other evidentiary
material was submitted in support of the motion, the legal
memorandum asserted numerous facts regarding a
“parallel” State court action, which was
allegedly underway in the Nassau County Surrogate's
Court. According to the Estate, this related litigation
involved a claim by Sunharbor to recover from the Estate
approximately $61, 000 for services it rendered to the
Decedent. The Plaintiff requested that this Court stay the
State court proceedings on the ground that Sunharbor's
claim in that case may be affected by the outcome of the
Estate's various tort and contract claims in this case.
days later, on August 14, 2016, the Estate filed another
so-called “Motion to Stay, ” this time including:
(1) a seemingly unrelated attorney declaration, entitled
“Motion to Amend, ” which was originally filed
several months earlier on May 4, 2016; and (2) a citation,
issued by the Chief Clerk of the Nassau County
Surrogate's Court to five individuals, including the
Executor of the Estate, directing them to show cause on
August 26, 2015, as to why Sunharbor's claim against the
Estate should not be approved.
in the current record indicates whether the Estate responded
to the Surrogate's citation, or otherwise indicates the
outcome of Sunharbor's claim in that proceeding.
statute governing federal court stays of State court
proceedings, namely, the Anti-Injunction Act, is codified in
28 U.S.C. § 2283, and provides that a federal court
“may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a
State court except  as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or  ...