Motion to Be Relieved or Withdraw as Counsel in Kevin Lynch as Administrator of the Estate of Rose Bouknight v. Montefiore Medical Center, Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation And, Jopal Bronx Llc d/b/a Workmen's Circle Multicare Center| Trellis.Law

On November 06, 2020 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between Kevin Lynch As Administrator Of The Estate Of Rose Bouknight, and Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation And, Jopal Bronx Llc D B A Workmen'S Circle Multicare Center, Montefiore Medical Center, for Torts - Medical, Dental, or Podiatrist Malpractice in the District Court of Westchester County.

Preview
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023 07:12 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, GLEN ISLAND
CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION and
JOPAL BRONX LLC d/b/a WORKMEN’S CIRCLE
MULTICARE CENTER,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X

GONZALO G. SUAREZ, ESQ., an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of

the State of New York, hereby affirms the following to be true pursuant to the penalties of perjury:

1. I am an associate of KAUFMAN BORGEEST & RYAN LLP, attorneys for

defendant, JOPAL BRONX LLC d/b/a WORKMEN’S CIRCLE MULTICARE CENTER

(hereinafter “WORKMEN”), and as such am familiar with the facts and circumstances set forth

herein.

2. This Reply Affirmation is submitted in further support of WORKMEN’s Motion

for Summary Judgment pursuant to CPLR §3212, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety

and directing the Clerk to enter judgment in WORKMEN’s favor, or alternatively, in the event

summary judgment is not granted in its entirety, granting partial summary judgment, dismissing

plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages pursuant to CPLR §3212.

3. In opposition to WORKMEN’s summary judgment motion, plaintiff submits a

highly defective Expert Affirmation of Dr. Perry Starer (which this office has identified based on

the doctor’s credentials) which grossly misrepresents the record, contains impermissibly

1
8784951

1 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

speculative and conclusory opinions, and fails to address the contentions raised in Dr. Marchello’s

Expert Affirmation. As discussed infra, similar expert opinions have been rejected in pressure

ulcer cases where such are speculative, conclusory, and fail to sufficiently address the

significance of the patient's medical co-morbidities and their effect upon the body's ability to

prevent and heal pressure ulcers. See Novick v. South Nassau Communities Hosp., 136 A.D.3d

999 (2d Dept. 2016). As a result plaintiff’s expert’s opinions must be rejected, warranting the

granting of summary judgment to WORKMEN. See Shapiro v. Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Nsg. &

Rehab. Ctr., 84 A.D.3d 1348 (2d Dept. 2011); Gold v. Park Avenue Extended Care Ctr., 90

A.D.3d 833 (2d Dept. 2011); Moore v. St. James Health Care Ctr., 141 A.D.3d 701, 35 A.D3d

464 (2d Dept. 2016); Wicksman v. Nassau County Health Care Corp., 27 A.D.3d 644 (2d Dept.

2006).

4. The glaring deficiencies in Dr. Starer’s opinions herein warrant their rejection, as

was the case in a Supreme Court, Nassau County matter handled by Your Affirmant’s office in

Estate of Stewart v. UPR Care Corp., Index No. 608447/2006 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co., June 3,

2019)(annexed hereto as Exhibit "A"), another case in which Dr. Starer served as the plaintiff's

expert. In Stewart, another pressure ulcers and nutritional compromise case, the Court granted

the defendant-nursing home's summary judgment motion and rejected Dr. Starer's

opinions as "conclusory and contrary to the record" (Exhibit "A" at P. 16) and for failing to

establish how the defendant nursing home's alleged wrongdoing proximately caused the

decedent's alleged injuries (Exhibit "A" at P. 16-17).

5. Dr. Starer’s opinions were again rejected in another Nassau County case, Estate of

Schramn v. Garden Care Center Inc., Index No. 603386/2017 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co., Nov. 26,

2019)(annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”). In that case, the Court granted our nursing home

2
8784951

2 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

client’s summary judgment motion and rejected Dr. Starer’s opinions as “conclusory” upon

determining that his opinions were negated by the facts in the record. Similarly at bar, Dr.

Starer's opinions herein should likewise be rejected.

6. Most recently, Dr. Starer’s opinions were yet again rejected in the recent Supreme

Court, Suffolk County matter handled by Your Affirmant’s office in Ehrhart v. East Neck

Nursing Home., Index No. 617321/2017 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County, January 12, 2023)(annexed

hereto as Exhibit “C”). In that case, the Court granted our nursing home client’s summary

judgment motion and rejected Dr. Starer’s opinions as “conclusory” and insufficient to raise

a triable issue. The Court noted Dr. Starer’s opinions were negated by the facts in the record as

well. Similar to the three (3) analogous cases annexed hereto, Dr. Starer’s opinions herein should

likewise be rejected.

7. Additionally, Plaintiff’s submissions fail to establish any basis for a punitive

damages award, as there is no evidence of intentional or reckless conduct by WORKMEN with

respect to its care of the decedent, and likewise, no intentional or reckless disregard of his rights

as a nursing home resident. Plaintiff’s speculative and conclusory opinions as to the allegations

as to wrongful death fail to create any type of issue of fact and said claim must be dismissed.

8. Since Plaintiff's submissions in opposition fail to raise any triable issues of fact,

the granting of summary judgment in WORKMEN 's favor is warranted.

POINT I

WORKMEN HAS FULLY SATISFIED ITS BURDEN OF PROOF

9. The law is well settled that the proponent of a summary judgment motion bears

the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by

tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact. Alvarez v.

3
8784951

3 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 322 (1986). The movant may meet this burden of proof through

the submission of expert opinions, deposition testimony and medical records. Jonassen v. Staten

Island University Hospital, 22 A.D.3d 805 (2d Dept. 2005); Ramsay v. Good Samaritan

Hospital, 24 A.D.3d 645 (2d Dept. 2005); Wicksman v. Nassau County Health Care

Corporation, 27 A.D.3d 644 (2d Dept. 2006).

10. Here, WORKMEN supports its summary judgment motion with the Expert

Affirmation of Vincent Marchello, M.D., who opines that the pressure ulcer prevention measures

that were in place were reasonable, conformed to accepted standards of care, were adequate and

appropriate, and that plaintiff’s pre-existing, outside-acquired skin impairments suffered by

decedent were unavoidable due to the precarious nature of decedent’s physical condition. Dr.

Marchello opines that the risk factors and co-morbid conditions for the development and possible

worsening of pressure ulcers were properly identified in the plaintiff’s care plan, and the

adequate and appropriate interventions were put in place with respect to the pre-existing skins

lesions. Proper treatment orders for the sacrum/coccyx, right buttock, right leg, and left lateral

leg, were obtained and implemented as specifically noted in the expert affirmation (Marchello

Affirmation ¶ 10-39).

11. Finally, Dr. Marchello opines that since the care provided to plaintiff conformed

to accepted standards of care and all applicable regulations governing nursing homes, was

reasonable, adequate and appropriate, and that decedent did not sustain any injuries or damages

as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, his claim for punitive damages and wrongful death should

be dismissed.

12. As discussed herein, infra, Plaintiff’s submissions in opposition fail to raise any

triable issues of fact, thus warranting the granting of summary judgment to WORKMEN.

4
8784951

4 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

POINT II

SINCE DR. STARER’S OPINIONS ARE CONCLUSORY, SPECULATIVE, MISSTATE
THE RECORD, AND FAIL TO SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS DR. MARCHELLO’S
CONTENTIONS, THEY SHOULD BE REJECTED

13. Dr. Starer’s Affirmation fails to raise any factual issues precluding summary

judgment, as his opinions are conclusory, speculative, misstate the record and fail to adequately

address Dr. Marchello’s focused opinions as to the care and treatment provided to decedent.

Instead, Dr. Starer’s Affirmation reads like a chart audit, pointing out every perceived

imperfection in charting that he could discern in the hundreds of pages of WORKMEN’s

records, ignoring the record itself and with many of these criticisms having nothing to do with

the issues at hand. Conspicuously absent from Dr. Starer’s affirmation is a cohesive explanation

as to how the purported deficiencies in care proximately caused the development and

deterioration of any pressure ulcers. Dr. Starer’s opinion as to the purported departure in care

should not be considered, as his Affirmation misrepresents the record, contains inaccuracies, and

is impermissibly speculative. Accordingly, Dr. Starer’s affirmation should be completely

rejected, as was very recently done by the Courts in Estate of Stewart, supra, (Exhibit “A”),

Estate of Schramn, supra (Exhibit “B”), and Erhart v. East Neck, supra (Exhibit “C”). See also

Shapiro v. Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Nsg. & Rehab. Ctr., 84 A.D.3d 1348 (2d Dept. 2011); Gold

v. Park Avenue Extended Care Ctr., 90 A.D.3d 833 (2d Dept. 2011); Moore v. St. James Health

Care Ctr., 141 A.D.3d 701 (2d Dept. 2016); Wicksman v. Nassau County Health Care Corp., 27

A.D.3d 644 (2d Dept. 2006).

14. To that extent, Dr. Starer’s argument that there is no documentation of proper

care/turning and positioning being provided is without merit. Even if there was inadequate

documentation, which there is not, in Braunstein v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 161 A.D.3d 675 (1st

5
8784951

5 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

Dept. 2018), the Appellate Division, First Department specifically rejected plaintiff’s argument

that the failure to sufficiently document was a proximate caused the decedent to develop pressure

ulcers:

Nor was an issue of fact raised by the expert’s opinion that
defendants caused the decedent’s ulcer by not documenting their
records in greater detail or her finding that the failure to document
was itself the proximate cause of the ulcers. A failure to document
each element of the skin care protocol does not equate to a failure
to perform each element or to a cause of the ulcer itself. (citations
omitted).

Id. at 345.

In Stewart v, UPR Care Corp. (Exhibit “A”), the Court rejected similar tactics utilized by Dr.

Starer in misrepresenting the Record and, citing Braunstein, supra, determined that this strategy

failed to raise any factual issues in response to the defendant-nursing home’s summary judgment

motion:

The nursing home has identified some discrepancies between the
facts advanced by Dr. Starer and the record, including the use of an
air mattress and heel floats long before February 2015, as alleged
by Starer as well as the implementation of the September 23, 2014
care of the decedent’s right heel ulcer. The records show that
order was timely implemented. It has also established that skin
checks were better documented than alleged by Dr. Starer. Skin
checks were recorded in a variety of records and while they might
have been omitted from one set of records, they are in fact
reflected in others. In any event, standing alone, a party’s failure
to document records in greater detail regarding skin care does not
create an issue of fact as to whether a defendant caused a
decedent’s ulcer; the failure to document is not itself a proximate
cause of ulcers (Braunstein v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 161 AD3d at
675, citing Topel v. Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr., 55 NY2d
682[1981]; Rivera v. Jothianadan, 100 AD3d 542[1st Dept 2012],
lv denied 21 NY3d 861 [2013]).

See also, Campbell v. Ditmas Park Rehab. & Care Ctr., et al., (P. 7 (“[c]ontrary to plaintiff’s

contention, Ditmas Park’s failure to document each element of decedent’s skin-care protocol did

6
8784951

6 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

not equate to a failure to perform each element or to cause pressure ulcers. (citing Braunstein,

supra).

15. In regards to turning and positioning, Dr. Starer’s affirmation relies solely on the

CNA Accountability records and specifically the sections noted as “Bed Mobility Turning and

Position” and “Turn and Position”. However, Dr. Starer fails to review the chart in its entirety, or

he would have noted that a proper Care Plan for turning and positioning decedent every two

hours was in place, and that it was in fact completed. When read in its entirety, the chart reflects

that turning and positioning was done in the times Dr. Starer alleges they were not. In regards to

February, April, May, June, and July 2018, Dr. Starer claims on two occasions each month

decedent was left on her left/right side for an extended period of time. However, the record

clearly reflects that turning and positioning was done. This is corroborated by the CNA

documentation which illustrated other activities which lend themselves to turning and

positioning being done every shift and day including bed mobility (Exhibit “F”, p. 2268, 2285,

2309, 2322, 2335), care being provided as indicated by the care plans (Exhibit “F”, p. 2269,

2286, 2310, 2323, 2336), and skin observations.

16. Again, in relation to March 2018, the record as a whole reflects that turning and

positioning was completed, as noted in the Bed Mobility section (Exhibit “F”, p. 2285), as well

as the “Care was provided as indicated” section which notes completion of the Care Plans every

shift (Exhibit “F”, p. 2286).

17. The record as a whole shows that appropriate care was being provided in a timely

fashion. Furthermore, decedent was being evaluated by the wound care team on a weekly basis,

with specific findings being reported each and every time. Even if individual sections of the

record are not complete, the failure to document each element of decedent’s skin-care protocol

7
8784951

7 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

does not equate to a failure to perform each element or to cause pressure ulcers as noted by the

Court in the abovementioned matters. Nor does this create a sufficient issue of act to defeat the

instant motion.

18. Dr. Starer proceeds to create false standards in his Affirmation. This includes the

assertion that the failure to document the position that decedent was placed in every two hours,

and the assertion that defendant had to implement a care plan which called for turning and

repositioning more frequently than every “two hours,” were deviations from the good and

accepted medical practice at the time. However, Dr. Starer has invented these standards and fails

to provide any evidence or citation that this is required. The reason for this is because it is a

fabricated standard that does not exist. These standards simply do not exist.

19. Dr. Starer opines without any evidentiary backing that decedent’s comorbidities

were not significant factors in the development or worsening of decedent’s wounds, but fails to

provide a full list of decedent’s comorbidities and fails to provide any explanation or provide any

authority for said opinion. This is clearly a conclusory self-serving statement which should not

be considered. Other than kidney disease, heart failure, dementia, and Steven Johnson syndrome,

Dr. Starer entirely ignores the laundry list of other comorbidities which decedent presented to

defendant WORKMEN with that Dr. Marchello asserts negatively affected decedent’s overall

health and ability to defend against skin integrity issues. Most importantly, Dr. Starer

completely ignores the significance of fact that decedent was suffering from Steven Johnson

Syndrome (SJS), a devastating skin condition/infection that causes open wounds

throughout the body, causes excessive stress on the overall physical condition, and can

cause death.1 He goes on to state that defendants cannot plead an unavoidability argument

1
Note: The photographs noted in Defense Expert’s Affirmation (Para. 12) which were inadvertently not annexed,
have been annexed hereto as Exhibit “D.”
8
8784951

8 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

because they failed to provide proper care, but as noted above, all of Dr. Starer’s opinions fly in

the face of the record. Rather, Dr. Starer claims that an investigation should have been done to

determine why appropriate care could not have been provided. However, this flies in the face of

the issue in the case, the fact that proper care was planned and provided for decedent. Decedent

was followed and evaluated by the Wound Care team on a weekly basis, on top of having daily

care and examinations conducted by the nursing and CNA staff. Interestingly, at no time in Dr.

Starer’s affirmation does he indicate that decedent developed any new pressure ulcers at

WORKMEN, or that the pre-existing pressure ulcers that decedent presented with worsened. Dr.

Starer is likely silent as to the issue as nothing of the sort occurred. As such, there can be no

allegations of negligence or violations of the PHL against WORKMEN. Consistent with Dr.

Marchello’s affirmation, decedent presented with pre-existing skin conditions (as admitted to by

plaintiff’s counsel) which did not deteriorate during decedent’s duration at WORKMEN.

20. Dr. Starer’s next erroneous position is that decedent was not provided with a

specialized pressure relieving mattress (Starer Affirmation Para. 103). This is an incorrect

assumption and misrepresentation of the record in this case. In fact, not only is a pressure

reducing mattress and low air loss alternating pressure reducing mattress noted throughout the

progress notes in the chart, but there are Care Plans in place for same (Exhibit “F”, p. 1971,

2160) with orders placed and filled for said mattress dating back as far as January 12, 2018

(Exhibit “F”, p. 351, 322, 300, 278, 269). As a result, the record is clear that from the time of

decedent’s initial admission she was placed on a pressure reducing mattress. Dr. Starer’s position

that decedent developed pressure ulcers as a result of a failure to provide pressure reducing

surfaces is without merit, as decedent was placed on said pressure reducing surfaces from her

admission.

9
8784951

9 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

21. Furthermore, Dr. Starer goes on to claim that defendant WORKMEN violated

“applicable state and federal regulations” however fails to specifically identify or address these

policies and procedures or statutes (Starer Affirmation ¶104). Instead, Dr. Starer makes a self-

serving statement that there were violations without naming any specific policies and/or statutes

which were violated, and with a scintilla of evidence of any type of violation.

22. Conspicuously absent from Dr. Starer’s affirmation is any comment about how

the decedent’s development of the subject ulcers could have been avoided in view of the

decedent’s catabolic state. Instead, plaintiff’s expert simplistically asserts, without explanation,

that pressure ulcers are “never events,” an argument that was specifically rejected in a recent

Appellate Division, First Department pressure ulcer case, Vargas v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 168

A.D.3d 596 (1st Dep’t 2019), which involved the plaintiff’s claim that his decedent developed a

sacral pressure ulcer due to the defendant-hospital’s wrongdoing. In opposing the hospital’s

summary judgment motion, the plaintiff submitted a “conclusory affirmation, which misstated

the record, mischaracterized the decedent as ‘relatively healthy’ and minimized the significance

of her many comorbidities (citations omitted). The expert also failed to address the defendant’s

expert’s assertions regarding the necessity of maintaining head-of-bed elevation of greater than

30 degrees, conflated the distinct concepts of ability to heal and avoidability . . . “ Vargas, 168

A.D.3d at 597; see Shapiro, supra; Novick, supra; Gold, supra.

23. Furthermore, Dr. Starer now makes allegations which are not even part of the

instant action in claiming violations of 42 CFR 483.25(d) claiming decedent suffered falls at the

facility (Starer Affirmation Para. 105). However, this theory flies even in the face of plaintiff’s

own counsel, as this was never a theory asserted by plaintiff’s counsel in either their Complaint

or Bill of Particulars, and specifically, plaintiff notes in their Bill of Particulars, “upon

10
8784951

10 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

information and believe, plaintiff is not making a fall claim at this time (Initial Motion Exhibit

“D”, Para. 23).” As such, even less credence should be provided to Dr. Starer’s affirmation.

24. Accordingly, in view of Dr. Starer’s gross misstatement of the record, his opinion

should be disregarded. See, Shapiro, supra [“The expert affidavit submitted by the plaintiff,

which relied upon facts contradicted or unsupported by the record, was speculative and

conclusory as to the negligence and wrongful death causes of action and did not raise a triable

issue of material fact as to any of the causes of action alleged in the complaint (emphasis added)

(citations omitted).”]; Novick, 136 A.D.3d at 1001-1002; Moore, 131 A.D.3d at 703; Gold, 90

A.D.3d at 834.

POINT III

SINCE PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION PAPERS FAIL TO PROVIDE ANY BASIS FOR A
PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD, DISMISSAL OF THE PUNTIVE DAMAGES CLAIMS
IS WARRANTED

25. Plaintiff’s opposition papers fail to proffer any basis for a punitive damages

award, as there is no evidence the plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages secondary to

intentional or reckless conduct by WORKMEN, and likewise, there is no of evidence of any

wrongdoing committed intentionally or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights as a nursing

home resident. See Valensi v. Park Avenue Operating Co., LLC, 169 A.D.3d 960 (2d Dep’t

2019); Vissichelli v. Glen-Haven Residential Health Care Facility, Inc., 136 A.D.3d 1021 (2d

Dept. 2016); see also Rey v. Park View Nsg. Home, Inc., 262 A.D.2d 624 (2d Dept. 1999).

26. Plaintiff’s counsel references to purported improper documentation of turning and

positioning and the allegedly improper care concerning the prevention and documentation of

pressure ulcers as grounds for a punitive damages award does not meet the standard for the

11
8784951

11 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

imposing punitive damages under PHL §2801-d. Accordingly, dismissal of the punitive damages

claims is warranted.

CONCLUSION

27. Since plaintiff has failed to present any triable issues of fact in response to

WORKMEN’s establishment of its entitlement to summary judgment, it is respectfully requested

that this Court grant the instant summary judgment motion, dismiss the Complaint and entering

judgment in WORKMEN’s favor pursuant to CPLR §3212, together with such other and further

relief as this Court deems just and proper.

28. No prior application for the relief requested has been made to this or any other

Court.

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the Court

issue an Order pursuant to CPLR §3212, granting summary judgment to defendant, WORKMEN

dismissing plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety and directing the Clerk to enter Judgment in

defendant’s favor; alternatively, in the event summary judgment is not granted in its entirety,

granting partial summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages pursuant to

CPLR §3212, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances, the presentation of the paper or the contentions herein are not
frivolous, as that term is defined in Part 130 of the Court Rules.

Dated: Garden City, New York
February 6, 2023

_________________________________
GONZALO G. SUAREZ, ESQ.

12
8784951

12 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
141 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN LYNCH as Administrator of the Estate of ROSE
BOUKNIGHT,
Index No. 64205/2020
Plaintiff,
WORD COUNT
-against- CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO RULE 202.8-B
MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, GLEN ISLAND
CENTER FOR NURSING AND REHABILITATION and
JOPAL BRONX LLC d/b/a WORKMEN’S CIRCLE
MULTICARE CENTER,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------X

GONZALO G. SUAREZ, an attorney duly admitted to practice law in the Courts of the
State of New York, hereby affirms the following pursuant to the penalties of perjury pursuant to
CPLR § 2106, that the above Affirmation in Support complies with the word count limitation set
forth in Rule 202.8-B of the Unified Court Systems of New York, as it contains 3,446 words. In
preparation of this certification I have relied upon the word count of the word processing system
used in preparation of this Affirmation in Support.

GONZALO G. SUAREZ, ESQ.

13
8784951

13 of 13
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
142 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM INDEX NO. 64205/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 150
143 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2023
02/07/2023
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/20/2023
02/07/2023 07:12
12:10 PM

Case Info

Judge

Lewis Jay Lubell Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

February 20, 2023

Case Filing Date

November 06, 2020

County

Parties

ATLAS, NICOLE MARIE Attorney for the Defendant
CHAMPEY, CHRISTINE ANNE Attorney for the Defendant
FERNANDEZ ROCKWELL, CHRISTINE ELIZA Attorney for the Defendant
Glen Island Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation and Defendant
Jopal Bronx LLC d/b/a Workmen's Circle Multicare Center Defendant
Kevin Lynch as Administrator of the Estate of Rose Bouknight Plaintiff
KOLAWOLE, OLUWATOSIN GLADYS Attorney for the Defendant
Montefiore Medical Center Defendant
SINEL, ELLIOT B Attorney for the Plaintiff
SUAREZ, GONZALO GASTON Attorney for the Defendant
TURKEN, JASON DANIEL Attorney for the Defendant
LUIS UMANA Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JANICE CASTRO Attorney
DANIEL NAEDER Attorney
GONZALO GUTIERREZ-ALVAREZ Attorneys for Defendants
JEFFREY BONDOC Attorneys for Defendants
KYLE EPSTEIN Attorneys for Defendants
AUSTIN O'BRIEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AMANDA OLESEN Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: Kevin Lynch as Administrator of the Estate of Rose Bouknight v. Montefiore Medical Center, Glen Island Center For Nursing And Rehabilitation And, Jopal Bronx Llc d/b/a Workmen's Circle Multicare Center

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties