New York Law Review

Tag: MFY Legal Services

  • New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 882 (2011): Enforceability of Adult Care Facility Visitor Access Guidelines

    New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc. v. MFY Legal Services, Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 882 (2011)

    Private guidelines restricting advocate access to adult care facility residents are unenforceable if they conflict with existing state regulations governing visitor access.

    Summary

    The New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living (NYCQAL) sought to enforce its visitor access guidelines for adult homes, arguing they clarified existing state regulations (18 NYCRR 485.14). These guidelines imposed restrictions on advocate access, including requiring facility representatives as intermediaries and limiting access to those visiting specific residents. MFY Legal Services and Coalition of Institutionalized Aged and Disabled (CIAD) challenged the guidelines. The New York Court of Appeals held that NYCQAL’s guidelines were unenforceable because they conflicted with the state’s regulations and the Department of Health’s (DOH) interpretation of those regulations, which provided broader access for advocates.

    Facts

    NYCQAL, an association of adult home and assisted living facility operators, drafted visitor access guidelines, claiming that MFY and CIAD representatives routinely violated state regulations. The proposed guidelines mandated facility representatives as intermediaries between advocates and residents and restricted access to those visiting a particular resident. NYCQAL sought to enforce these guidelines against MFY and CIAD, which provide legal and advocacy services to adult home residents, arguing that their representatives refused to abide by them.

    Procedural History

    NYCQAL sued MFY and CIAD, seeking a declaratory judgment that its guidelines were enforceable and an injunction against their violation. The Supreme Court granted NYCQAL’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the guidelines enforceable. The Appellate Division reversed, granting MFY and CIAD’s motion to dismiss and declaring the guidelines unenforceable. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether NYCQAL’s visitor access guidelines, which impose restrictions on advocate access to adult care facility residents, are enforceable.

    Holding

    1. No, because the guidelines impermissibly restrict advocate access to facility residents and violate 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH’s interpretation of that regulation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding that NYCQAL’s guidelines conflicted with 18 NYCRR 485.14 and the DOH’s interpretation of the regulation. The DOH’s guidance indicated that advocates need not state the purpose of their visit or the residents they intend to see, whereas NYCQAL’s guidelines required facility representatives as intermediaries and limited access to those visiting specific residents. The court noted the guideline providing that a visitor’s failure to comply with any of the guidelines would “constitute reasonable cause to restrict access” (guidelines § D [4]) conflicted with 18 NYCRR 485.14 (g) as every violation of NYCQAL’s guidelines would not “directly endanger” the safety of those residents. The court emphasized that the regulation allows operators to restrict access only when there is reasonable cause to believe an individual would directly endanger the safety of residents. The court concluded that NYCQAL’s more restrictive guidelines were inconsistent with the state regulations and therefore unenforceable.