The Supreme Court has declined to take up a case challenging former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial COVID-era nursing home policies, a decision met with defiance from the former governor’s team and profound disappointment from a Brooklyn man who believes those policies led to his father’s death.
Daniel Arbeeny’s lawsuit alleged that Cuomo’s orders, requiring nursing homes to accept patients returning from hospitals regardless of COVID-19 status, directly contributed to the death of his 89-year-old father, Norman. The case hinged on the argument that these policies deprived residents of their rights and resulted in preventable fatalities.
A lower court had previously dismissed the suit, citing qualified immunity – a legal protection often afforded to public officials acting within their capacity. This protection shields officials from prosecution unless their actions clearly violate established law.
The policies themselves were enacted during a period of intense fear that hospitals would be overwhelmed by COVID-19 cases. The intention, according to Cuomo’s defense, was to free up crucial hospital beds for patients with more severe illnesses.
However, critics argue that the directive effectively turned nursing homes into COVID-19 reservoirs, exposing vulnerable residents to the virus and accelerating its spread. The debate became particularly heated during Cuomo’s 2025 mayoral run, with opponents from across the political spectrum demanding accountability.
“Nine thousand COVID-positive patients were forced into nursing homes with deadly consequences,” Arbeeny stated, expressing his frustration with the Supreme Court’s decision. He believes the court’s inaction doesn’t diminish the tragic reality of the situation.
Cuomo’s spokesperson countered that numerous investigations – including those conducted by the Department of Justice, the New York County District Attorney, and the New York State Attorney General – had already cleared the former governor of wrongdoing. They maintain the policies were consistent with federal guidance and practices adopted by states nationwide.
Independent reviews pointed to the fact that the Cobble Hill nursing home where Norman Arbeeny resided had already admitted its first COVID-positive patient days after his discharge, a detail highlighted by Cuomo’s legal team. This timeline further complicated the claim of direct causation.
The case ignited a fierce public debate, fueled by accusations of underreporting deaths and political maneuvering. Reports indicated the official death toll reported by Cuomo’s administration – 8,505 by January 2021 – was significantly lower than the actual figure, which exceeded 12,000.
Despite the legal setbacks, Arbeeny and others who lost loved ones remain convinced that Cuomo’s decisions were fatally flawed and that a full accounting of the events is still needed. The Supreme Court’s silence on the matter leaves many families grappling with unanswered questions and enduring grief.
The core of the dispute centers on whether the need to preserve hospital capacity justified the risk imposed on nursing home residents, a question that continues to resonate long after the height of the pandemic.
