Ainsworth M. Bennett,, Appellant,v.St. John's Home et al., Respondents.BriefN.Y.November 18, 2015 TABLE OF CON'IENTS TABLE OF AU'IHORITIES Page ii I a L 4 9 QI-]ESTI( )NS PRESENTED S'IATEV:EN]' OF THE CASE COUN]'iiR-S ATEMENT OF FACTS ARGUM BNT P()N]'I T]_{E T'RIAL COURT PII.OPERI-\' CONSIDERED RESPONDEN'fI]' MO'II(fN FOR SUMMARY JU,DGMENT WI{I]RE THE COURT'S O\JVN I}ITEF:EST IN RESOLVING ISSIJES OF LAW WERT] GOOD C:\IJSE) A\D r\LL PARTIES CONSEN'|EiD POIN'I'II TllB LOWER COURT PROPEI|L,Y GRANTED SUMMARY JtJDGlv'lIlf.l'f U ?ON A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO RECOVI]RABLE CLA II\4 U NDER THE PUBLIC HEALT]H LAW P()IN]'III A LLEGtsD FAILURES TO ORDIJR DISCHARGI] IS I\CTUALLY ITN U\PLED MEDICAL MALPRAC,IICE CLAIM: THE SOCIAL WOR.KE;R H {D }\rO LEGAL AUTHORIT\' :fO DISCI{ARGE THE RESIDENT P()IN]'IV N ]W ,\RGUMENTS OF FACT OR II\IPROPERLY POSITED TO THIS LAW NOT RAISIID BELOW' ,,\RIl COUR'f CONCLLISION 11 JU 35 38 TABLE OF AI,JTHORITIES Pllge Cases: Armentar,o, et el. v Broadway luIall Properties, Inc., et al,, 4t AD3d 493 l2"d Dept 20081 9 Br,ill v Ciy of New York, 2 \Y3d t54812004) 9 Butler v, ,|horefi'ont Jewish Geriatric Ctr., Inc., 3i Misc. 3d 686 iKings Co Sup. Ct.20111............... ....... 12,73,28 Carthon v. Btr.ffalo General Hospita Dcuconess Skilled Nursing Focilit.y Dit,is,i.ort, 8: ,A,,D,3d 740414"' Dept.20111.,............ 31 Ciesinslri v, Tcnun of Auro.ra, 202 AD2d 984 [4"'Dept 1994] 36 Coursen't, ,rYew Yorlc Hosp,-CorneLl Mal. Ctr., 114 A.D,2d254 [1't Dept. 1986] .....,.... 31 D'Elia v. hlenorah Home and Hosp..for the Aged and [nfirm, 51 .{.D.3d 848 [2"o Dept.2008] . . . ...... 32 Ferrar v. Galluchio, 5 \Y.2d 16 [1958] 2s Irr,zsh Po,ul Rd. .Assoc. v. Estate o.f Schacht, 1 t 0 AD2d 561 [2"" Dept 1986].. 36 Fox y. LVlite Plains Med. Ctr,, 1t5 A.D.Zd 538 [2"d Dept. 1986]........,. 31 F1ve v. U 5., 2t'3 F . 1013 lD.C. Cir. 19231 29 GDJS Co,.])"v. 917 Props., Inc., 9! ,A..t).2d 998 llst Dep't 19841 ....... 15 Go!/o v. Ilyazict Assoc., Inc., 4i ,{D3d 53 1 [2"u Dept 2007] 15, 16 Gold v. Pyk tlve. Extended Care Ctr. Corp., 9(rA.tr.3d 833 [2"'r Dept.20l l]. ..,.......... 12 Gonzalez v. 9[] tr(ag Leasing Corp., 9i NY2d t2412000) 9 Guzman v. 40:]0 Bronx Blvd., 5r A.t,.3d 42lft Dept. 20081 . . . .. . 29 Hadden t,. Oonsolidated Edison Co. of ALY., 4i NY2d 466119781.......... 16 He.ldi E. tt l\a,nda l4/., 21 0 A.D.2d 91 8 [4'" Dept 1994] 15 Johnson t,, Sta,tc of New York, 37 N.Y.2d 378 [1975].......... 25 Ltma v. A,nerican Airlines, 676F. iSupp.2d192 [S.D.N.Y.2009]......., 24 Marton v. Oon,solidated Edison Contpan,t o.f New Yorlt, Inc., 36 Mis,o. 3d1239.,.., 9, 10 Mi.<:eli y State ,trarm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 3 I'i\'3d 725120041 9 Irlttssau Trtrst ()o. v. Montrose Concrete ,Drocls. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d r7s U9821 ls Ornstein r. New,York City Health and lltspitals Oorporation, e,t al, 10 N.Y.3d 1 120081 ......... it4,2s Ostiorne t'. Rivington House-Tlte Nicholus A Rango l-lealth Care F'acility, 19 Misc.3d 1 I 32 [Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 2008] 31 Papa v. B "unswiclr Gcn. flosp., 132 ,4,D,2d 601 12"'1Dept. 19871..."...... 32 Parlier y. lVIob,il Oil Corp., 7 l.r.Y.3d 43412006) 29 Pe:clr y. Pcck. 232 ,\DZd 540 l2^d Dept 1 9961.,.,.. 15 Re1, v. Parlt View Nw'sing l{ome, 262 ,4J).2d 624 l2"u Dept. 19991 .... ... 31 Seubert, et al. v. Marchioni, et al., 112 ,{d3d 1370 [4"'Dept 2013].....,........ 36 Smee y. Sis/ers o"f Charity \{osp. of Bt(falo, 210 ,A.D.2d 966l4'n Dept, 1994, ...,...... .. 31 Snttth v. Citlt o-f iluJfalo, et al., 2014 NY App. Div. Lexis 6431; f{Y Slip Op. o6445 [4"'Dept 20141 36 T.CIJ. East (loast Constr. Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 600 F. Supp. 178 [S.D.N.Y. 1985;] .... 15, 16 Trttmp Vit. Sec'lion 3, Inc. v New York St,qte Hous. Fin, Agency, 307 ,A,D2d 891 [1't Dept 2003] 10 Vumbaca v. Terninal One Group Association L.P., 859 F.Sulrp .2d 343 [E.D.N.Y. 2012) .. 24 Zeides v. rlebreu, Home.for the Aged at Riverdale, 300,A..1f .2d 178 [1" Dept.2002].. ... .. 12 i11 Statutes: 10 N.Y,C.l{,R. $413.3 ...,.... 19. 20, Zr, 22, :\4 19,:20 CPI-R $ 3:112(a) 9 Ner,v York Publlic Flealth Law $2801-d ...... 1.1, 12,29" ''\0 Nerv York Pub;Lic Health Law $2803-c...........,... .... ." 13, 14^'32 Nerv York I'ubtic Health Law $2803-c (3)(a) (Mcl(inney's 2013).............. .. 17,18,'32 Nerv York I'ublic Health Law $2803-c (3)(e)..... 14 Other Authorities: Restateme nt (Seconcl) of Torts S 436.\ cfnt. b (i965) Restateme ut (T'hird) of Torls $ 46 crnt. i t.Tentative Draft No' 5,2007) \9 r9 :t0 :10 ^tALA ''t AL1 IV OUES:TI ONS PRIISENIIED 1. Is.heLowerCourt'sinterest,inresolvingissuesol'lawinadvanceofatriLal,sufficient ca,lse fur the Lower Court to conl;icler a motion for summar:y judgrnerLt as 1.o issues of law in advance of a trial, more than 1120 days after the liling ,cf a Note o1'Issuer, il all parlles; co nsent? Proposed Answer: Yes. 2. Did the Lower Court properly grant summary judgrnent to the Del'endantr;-Respondents uFon a finding that there was no .iecoverahie clairn under the Public F[e:alrth I-avv for au alJeged deprivation of Virginia Berurett's rights as the result of a delay in her discharge: frgm ttre St. Johr's Home when |er husband Ainswofth Beunett electcC not to voiuntarily tal:change of records, exchange of Bills ol'Particulars, and the depositions of the parties. I'}laintiff-Appellant's Bill of Particulars and Nfr. and ).{rs. Bernett but argued that the AMI\ option was distasteful to Mr. BenrLett ancl there:fore it s:ould not ha've been considered a legal option for Mr'. and Mrs. Ben-nett. Regardlesis of"*rhether \{r. and ]lrs. Bennett liked that option, however, the choice continued to exist, l1r)ne[heless. The staff at the St. John's Honre was obliged to full1 infbrm Mr. and Mrs. B,ennett of ::-,:ir opt ons and of the potential conriequences of those options, per the lPutrlir: Health [,aw' r. Y. Putlic Flealth Law $2803-c (3)(e). The lact remains ihat after being lullf inflarintiff- Appellanr's unsupported clairls for emotional harm in this case fail to meet tliese requisite causal ne)(us ol' ;;uareurtee oi'genuineness and nrust therefbre f ail as a rnatter of larv. D re to the dangers presented by ernotional distress claims, Nevr Yc,rk courl.s have ccrtttinuec to restrict the situations where plaintiff's nia)'recover. Vunthucu t,. Tenninal ()ne ()roup ilssocitrtion L.P.,859 F.Supp.2d343,372 [1,D.1{.Y.2012);see Reslatenrent (Second) of Torts $ 436A cmt. b (1965); Restatemcnt (Third) of lorts $,16 cmt. i (Tentative Draft lirlo. 5, 2007). In L"urnbaca, the court dismissed the plainl.iff s claims fcr emol.iontrl har:m describecl as de:hydrati rtr, headache, nausea, disgust, hunger, thirst, and discornfort as a result o1'beinll kept locked in an aircraft on the tarmac at an airport terminal for selen horrs be,czruLse they did not present "s hock ing circumstan ces" . Vumt,aca at 373 . ')^ In ,Johnson t,. State oJ-Nev, )'ork. 37 \.Y'.2d 378, 383 L19l5l, tfLe Clourt of .z\npeals provided clear instruction on tliis point: "[o]ne to wirom a duty of care is owed...ma)/ recover for harrn sttstaitted solely as a result of an initial, negligently-caused psyrlhologicerl trauma but with ensuing psychic harm with residual physical manifestations, In the absence of contemporaneous or consequential physical injury, cclutts have been reluctant to pennit r€,covery for negligently caused psy,:h,rlogical trauma with ensuing emotional harm alone." Tlie Coul of Appeals provided more recent irrstruction on this point in Ctnts,tein v. lVew I'ork C'ity Haalth and l{osltitctls Corporation, et a\.,10 N\'.3d 1 12008]: "breach oi [a] duty y iar:ks any "guarantee of genuineness" to be a sustairrable claim fl;r dramages. Ort appeal, Plaintiff-Appellant argues that the Court should mak.e a pl'esumpti,rrr that Vjlrginia BenrLett suffered some emotional harm while at St. John's Horne. as in a false inqlrisonrrent case. This, however, is not a false irnprisonment case. Further, t.ire record below fails to p:ovide any factual basis for such a presumption. According to the rnedical rccords rnrlintaineC for Virginia Bennett while she resided at St. iohn's FIorne, she did rrot demonstrate an)' symp onls or behaviors indicative of increased depression or anxiety while in residence at St. Jobn's Hcnre. The submission of the affinnation of Michele Carpenter, M.D., th,e physician who 27 tre:atcd l4rs. Bennett while slie resided at St. John's lfome, and the aflirmation o1 V,/illiarr R.eamy, I'vI.D., Mrs. Beunett's own treating psy'chiatrist, also directiy controvert an1' suclr presumplion. (R644, R645; P .674, R674). In fact, Ir4rs. Bennett demonstrated an improvecl mood while in :esidence at St. John's Home; she participated in an increasing nurnber o1'activitjies and her baseline rnedication used to control her depression remained at the same dr:sage thrr:ughout her residlnce, (R649, R652; P.674, R676). Dr. Rearny, who saw Mrs. Ile,nnetr before, r:luring, and aftet her residence at St. John's Home, attests to observations that she lppeared sterble, r,rzithout z.ny dowuturns in her emotional well-being throughout this time period, ancl that neither N{rs. BerLnett nor Plaintiff-Appellant cornplained of any syn:Lptoms or behiaviors indicat.ive o1' inr:reasec depression. (R674, R675, R6i'6, R677). It is therefore respectfully submitted that there is no ba.sis in the record c,f this casl'upon ra,hich the Plaintiff-Appellant could sustain a cognizable claiLm for damages Lrnder the: Public l,[ea]th L iu'. b Plaintiff-Appellant's claim for emotional harm does not have the requisite.causal nexus to the alleged deprivation Tc collect damages under the Public Health Law, Plaintifi-Appellant mur;t prove a causal rclationslrip between the alleged deprivation of rights and the alleged injury. Butler y. Sho,reli'ont Jewish Ceriatric Ctr, Inc.,33 Misc.3c[ 686,697 [Sup. Ct., Kings Co.20],1] (,rlhere plaintifl-s e;xperl showed nothing other than speculation as to how an infection was causecl by the vi,llation of Public Flealth larv, claims were properly dismissed). Specifically, the statute provides that "tlpon a finding that a patient has beerL deprived r:f a right or: benefit and that said patrerrt has cclmpensatorl, damages shall tre assessec. i1 anb,:en injtred as a result of said deprivation 28 an:iount srillcientto compensate such patient for such injury. . ."N.Y. Putr. Etealth Law $21801-d (2,). In slort,lire law requires that the alleged injury be caused by the alleged Ceprivation. D:1'enciants-Respondents subrnitted to the L,ower Court the Aflfirmalion and llepl5r Affirmaticn of Mrs. Bennett's treating physician at St. John's Horne wtLo affirmed that she strlfered tto emotional harm as the result of her ongoing stay at S1. John's Home in2007. ('R644, R645, It t46). In response. Plaintiff-Appellant only submitte:d the extrrert ,Jisclosure, of a ps;ycholo11ist who never examined or treated Virgin,ia Bennett as lproposed prool'that her allegecl ernotiona harm was caused by a deprivation of'her rights. (R122). There was no sworn stratetttent, testimotty, or opinion before the Lower Court to supporl Plaintifl:Appellant's claim that Mrs. Bennett suffered from depression caused by her additional resiidenc,y at St. John's Home. n i'act, because the symptonrs of Mrs. Bennett's dementia and depression r.vc,ulcl necessarily be intertwined due to the nature of these mental diseases, a psycJ.rologist u,ho n€)ver ex.arnined lvlrs. Bennett could not establish a baseline nor draw any causal nexLls to anlthing irr pairticular Ilased upon the applicable la'w for adrnission of experl testimony rrlgarding caus;ation, the propo;ed tr:stimony about the causation for Mrs" Bemett's clepression lvers far too spec;u1atir,'e to nrake i prima.facie case of causatiorr. Frye v. LlS. ,293 F. 1013 [D.C. Cir. 1923]; Parke,r v. Mobil Oit C'orp., 7 NY.3d 434,447 [2006]; Guzman v. 4030 lTronx Blt,d,,5,+ AD.3d 42,51-52 [1't Dept. 2008] (an expert witness with no relationship to tlLe plaintiff pri,cr 1o the allegedly' cau.sal eve ,nt "lacks the close connection...that rnight permit a reliable assess.rllent of the ex1:ent to which a tr,articuiar traumatic event or non-traumatic factors conlributecl to the .noted cosnitive, irlrLDairmerrt."). 29 i{6 ,s fl A ,t, *; .'.lir {, i; :i 6' 4'. .7. a. t.. i F ere, Plaitrtiff-Appellant's proposed causation expert lacks the reqrrisite foundation to provide itny reliable opinion of emotio:rai harm due specifically to some alleged deprivation of rights, ?laintiff-Appellant's expeft ps;ychologist never saw or treated lr,{rs. lBennett and her opinion js not based upon any examination of Mrs. Bennett. (I{1,22). It is therefore respectfully submitte I that there is no cognizable claim for ernotional harrL based urpon the record of this case. POINT III \LLEGED FAILURIIS TO ORDER DISCI}IARGI] IrS ACT'UAL,L!'AN UNI'}LED ,VIEDICAL MALPRACTICB CLAIM; THE SOCIAI, WORKI]II FIAD NO LEGAL AUTOHOR.ITY TO pISCTTARGD THE RESrpl0NT ,A lthough Plaintiff-Appellant lacels this case as a claim pursuant to Public Flealth Law S2]801-d for zL deprivation of Virginia.Bennett's rigirts under law, the cru>l o1'the case actually challengr:s to the medical decisions rnade by tire physicians at 1.he St. John's I'lorne, Specifically, Plaintiff-Appellant alleges that Mrs. Bennett should have been discharged fiorn St. John's Home into the rrimary care of her husband. However, as the Defendants-Responclents establisheci ltrr the Lowt,r Court through the expert affirnrations of'Sharotr Brang;man, M.D. and the affirmations of Mrs. Ilennr:tt's treating physician Michelle Carpenter, M.D., a discharge frorrL a nursintr; horne requires a ph'ysician's order. (R6aa; Rti49; R738; R742). Oniy a physician can issue the orde:r for the discharge of a resident fi'om a nurrsing home. (1L738, R739). When a prhys;ician orclers that a rlischarge be conditioned on the placement of supporl services, a social w,cr:ker cannot overide thiat decision. (R738, R739, R740). lfhe allegations in this case therefc,r,: sound in meclical mrlipract ce. Allegations which arise out of the "improper assessment of lapatie,nt's] mental and 30 p'hysical conclition and the degree of sr,rpervision requirecl" for the patielt lre those sounCing in nredical nalpractice . Rey t,, Park Viev, Nursing Horne,262 A.D.2d 624, 626 [2"'l Dept. lgt)g). Cliiirns against a nursing home rvhich sounri in rnedical malpraclice must be pled as such. C)arthon v. Bu.ffalo General Hospila l)eacones.s Skillect Nursin,g Facili;v I)it,i^cion, g3 ,a,.D.3d 1404 l4'' Dep'1' 29111. For example, the Court in (larthonheld that allegations in the corlpiaint as amplified by the bill of particulars such as "defendants fbiled to 'cnact and follorv a' approprirte care plan' for decedent, faiied to 'change and/or adjust decedent's c:are plan,'failed tO 'upda'e and foilow an appropriate plan of care pursuant to a conrprehr:nsrve assessrnent,, failed to 'provide adequate staffing,' and faiied to 'prorride adequate servir;es t6 mraintai' dr:cedent s physical well-being"' were claims "souncling i1 me,Cical nralpractioe because 1.hey clrrallenge the nursing hotne's oSSess[Lent of decedent's need for supelu,irsion.,, Corlhgn, g1) A.D'3d 14C14, 1405 [4tr' Dcpt. 20ii] (citing Smee v. Sisters of Charit.y Hosp oJ Bt(falg,2I0 A.D.2d 9 56, 967 [4tr' Dept. 1gg4]). Sirnilarly, where a patient allegerl that becl rilils should hal,e been used in the absence of a dor:tor's order when such an order is rerluired, tire court dismissed plaintilf s ai|:gations as they were not, br-rt should have been, pled as; rnedical malpractice. See CoursetL r,. l,lew ysrk lto5p.- ()ornell trfed. Cn'.,114 A.D.2d25411't Dept. 1986]; see alsoFox v. White F,lttins: Mecl Ctr,,l25 AD'2d 538 [2"d Dept. ]9861 (improper assessment o1'plaintiffs condition and degr:ee o1 suprervisic n needed, parlicularly with regard to ability to ambulate post-operatively, is question of medicr"l rnalpractice, not negligence); Osborne rt. Rivington House-T'he, Nic:holas A Rattgo Health Cu'et I'acility, 19 Misc.3d 1132 INY Sup. Ct 2003] (the questign of whether delt:'dant itl'lproperlg lailed to erect bed rails on rel;ident's bed is one that sounds in med.ica.l malpractice as it involves an evaluation of Osborne's condition ancl his risk of falling, and implir:ates; ,,the 3t pr:ofessioral skill and knowledge of the practitioner or the medical facility); D'tVlia v. JulcnorttJt Hctme ani lJo'sp. /br the Aged and Infirnt,5i A.D,3d 84tl [2'd Drept. 20081; papav, Btrunst,r,ick Gen. Hos,t., l32 A.D.2d 601 , 603 [2,'d Dept. l9g7]. D:1'enclants-Respondents sttbmit that the ultimate questions of when, rvhether, a.nd under what circumsl-ances Virginia Bennett s;hould have been dischargecl is a qr.resl.ion of'rn.edical nla'lpracti:e. Defendants-Respondents dernonstrated to the Lr:wer Coult that tho ultimate decisiotl t,s to whether a resident is disc.harged from a nursing home is rnadr: by a phys:iciern and the Plaint ff-Appellant failed to refute such orooj. nett vlas not derrrived of trer llo ad c and 4ppronriate medical care as the result of the ad.,^r.",,y * t".k "1.advocacv by the soci:ll worker. Inr;tead of challenging the medical judgment o1'the physicial who vzas responsible for Mrs. Bentett's; discharge order, the Plaintiff-Appellant argues tliat the dis:har61e was de,layed because a social worker failed to expressr the appropriate level of advocacy for lvlrs. Berurett and tha1. this d:prived her of the right to adeqrate and appropriate medical care. W thin the Bill of Rights enunrerated by Public Flealth Law $2i303-c is a rig;ht to "arpert affimnatio' a.d reply af irrnation of Sharon Brangman, M.D. who opined to the Lower court that the rnecically- re:iated ;ocial services provided by iit. Joirn's Home demonstrate thal all care reasonably necessary to ilvoid a deprivation of Mrs. Bennett's rights was provided to hrer arrd that St. Joh',s l{ome succe3ded in furfilring her r.Lghts. (R64g, R657; R73g, R74r). Jin iigrrt,cf this uncontrcverted evi6ltnce, the Lower court properly dismissed the plaintiff-Apperllant,s argu'rent that this 'egulation established a basis firr a cause of action irr this case. Il is t'herefore respectfully subnritted that any allegation rthat the physici,ans at st, Jotrn,s Home shruld have issued an order for Virginia BerLnett's discharge earlier, or.without 241-,t home h':althcar:: services is, therefore, necesriarily a question of medical malpraLctice whictr was not pled' In the absence of any cause of action in this case 1br medical maipracl.ice, no suoh theorv or any eviclenr:e in support of such a therory can be put to trial anrJ all sr-rch r:laims were properly disrnissec by the Lower Cour1. POINT IV NEW ARGU]\{ENTS OF F'ACT OR I,AW NOT RAISED BELOW ARE INIPROPERI,I, POSITED TO THIS COURT Plrrintiff-Appellant asserts many new theories and questions that r.vere not conr'i'ed within his papers before tlie Lower court. These include the argument that plaintiff-Appella't,s "ac'quiescr:nce", and that of his wife, does not constitute acceptance of her continuecl residency,at the St' Jolm's Flome. Plaintiff-Appellant also conrends for the 1lrst tirne thrt h.e and his wife cannot ha"e be'en deemed to accept the discharge plan developecl by St. .[ohn,s I{orne as suclr "Ia]ccepta.tce cannot be compelled." Plaintiff-Appellant now asserts that Respondents- Defi:ndant i "denied" liis wife discharge fiorn the nursing horne. plaintifl,-Appella,nt also ar,gues, J) 'for the irst time on appeal, that taking his wife out of St. .lohn's Home agai'r;t meclica1 ad'ice (:"AMA') was not a viable option as he would have had to "sign out,, h,ir; wife to rlo so and. therefor':, this was a "restraint" on his wife's rights and benefits. Finally, pliaintiff-Appellant argues ttat Respondents-Defendants' rnotion for summary judgrnent r.l,as untin:Lely as it,was not trrought withi' 120 days of the filing of'the Note of lssue. l'il oi'these arguments were first raiseci by I'laintiff-Appellant on a;ppeal ancl cgpstitute new tllerries and questions of allegecl deprivations of virginia Bennett,s rights. ,'It is well settled trat a.n'appellate coutt should not, and will not, conr;ider difjerent theories or new questionr;, if proof might have been olTered to refute or ov€rco,rlle thenr had those thec,ries .r questionrr been presented in the court o1'first instance' ," C'iesinsk,i y. Tov,n 0,f ,4ut,ora.202 AD.2d 984, 985 [4"' Dept r99al; quoting Fresh pontl Rd. As,soc. v. Estate o.f ,g,::httcrtt, 1ir.0 z\D.2d 5'51l2nd l)ept 19861. Since the Plaintiff-Appellant failecl to include any of't6ese theor.ies and questions in his papers belbre the Lower couft, they cannot be considered 1br revierv cr1 ,rpFeal. smith v lirv of Buffalo, et a\.,2014 NY App. Div'. Lexjs 6431; Ny Slip Crp. o6445 [4rr'Dept 2014);Seubert'etal.t'.Marchioni,etal,, 112Ad.3d 1370,1371[4thDept20l3]; see C'ies,irtskiat 98:5. white the Defendants-Responde:nts do not concede tliat these argun:lents are prrrpelly, befbre thi; Court, a review of each revea.ls them to be equally without merit Lc,l.e,,/erse the l_o,wer couft's d:cision and order. plaintiff_.A.ppellant,s new algument that he anci his wilb dirj not actively accept the plan of care recommended by' St. John's Flome, but only acquiesced. is contrary to the facts before the Lower Courl, Rather, the record shows that lrlr. Ile*ett returned hisl wife t, the nursing home after taking her out for appointments or1 more than one c,ccilsion. Plaintiff-'n ppeilant's decision to repeatedly return his wife to the nursing ho:me completelv JO undercuts his allegation of having only acquiescecl in the plan <-rf care fcrr hLis ivife. T'he:se facts illso reftlte tl:Le Piaintiff-Appellant's new argument that he or his wife was,,restrained,,by,having f O "sign ottt" his wife before taking her home. In fact, no formal "sign out,'6ocumenrs were ever Qqrt HON, WILLIAM P.. POI,TTO JUSTTCE SUPREME COURT