Opinion
22-CV-4816 (CS)
11-10-2021
LYNDA MARANINO, as Administrator of the Estate of VILMA TROISE aka VILMA MARIE TROISE, Plaintiff, v. CABRINI OF WESTCHESTER d/b/a ST. CABRINI NURSING HOME, ABC CORPORATION, and ABC PARTNERSHIP, Defendants.
Joseph Ciaccio Napoli Shkolnik PLLC Melville, New York Counsel for Plaintiff Fiachra P. Moody Lori Rosen Semlies Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP White Plains, New York Counsel for Defendants.
Joseph Ciaccio Napoli Shkolnik PLLC Melville, New York Counsel for Plaintiff
Fiachra P. Moody Lori Rosen Semlies Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP White Plains, New York Counsel for Defendants.
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester, (ECF No. 13), and Defendant's opposition thereto, (ECF Nos. 18-19).
The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions, as well as the submissions of the parties and the Opinion and Order of the Court in Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester, No. 22-CV-5430 (S.D.N.Y.). Palma involved the same Defendants, the same counsel on both sides, and the same claims in the state-court complaint. In litigating the Plaintiff's motions to remand, the Palma parties addressed substantively identical issues and made substantively identical arguments as they do in this case.
I agree with Judge Briccetti's conclusions and reasoning in his August 15, 2022 Opinion and Order remanding Palma. See Palma v. Cabrini of Westchester, No. 22-CV-5430, 2022 WL 4240823 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2022). Palma is consistent with the vast weight of authority in similar cases. See, e.g., Druckman v. Morningside Acquisition I, LLC, No. 22-CV-5324, 2022 WL 17336867, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2022) (collecting cases for propositions that “Federal district courts in New York have consistently remanded” cases in which “plaintiffs have brought COVID-19-related state-law tort claims against New York nursing home facilities in New York state court” and “[o]ther Circuits have similarly rejected the same removal arguments”).
Accordingly, for the reasons explained in Palma, Plaintiff's motion to remand this case to state court is GRANTED. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion, (ECF No. 13), and remand the case to the Supreme Court, Westchester County.
SO ORDERED.