## Facts

- A health club patron collapsed while playing racquetball at a Bally facility in Lake Grove, New York.
- The club was subject to General Business Law (GBL) § 627-a, requiring specified health clubs to maintain an automated external defibrillator (AED) and have an employee trained in AED use on the premises.
- A 911 call was placed shortly after the collapse.
- A Bally personal trainer was trained in AED operation and CPR; he assessed the patron and later observed other responders, including another employee with the club’s AED and medical bystanders.
- Emergency medical services transported the patron to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
- The estate alleged Bally negligently failed to use the available AED and otherwise failed to provide proper emergency assistance, contributing to the death.

## Issues

1. Whether GBL § 627-a implies a private negligence cause of action based on a health club’s alleged failure to use an AED that the statute requires it to have.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim for common-law negligence based on the health club’s alleged failure to render reasonable emergency assistance to a patron in distress.
3. Whether statutory immunity provisions related to emergency aid and AED use required dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court held the complaint stated a statutory negligence claim because GBL § 627-a imposed an affirmative duty that could support a private cause of action for failure to use the mandated AED.
- The court also held the complaint stated a claim for common-law negligence based on alleged failure to act reasonably in responding to an apparent medical emergency on the premises.
- The court declined to dismiss on asserted immunity grounds at the CPLR 3211(a)(7) stage, finding the defense not resolvable on the pleadings alone.

## Legal Principles

- A private right of action may be implied from a statute when (1) the plaintiff is within the class the statute protects, (2) a private action would advance the statute’s purpose, and (3) the remedy is consistent with the legislative scheme.
- Under this decision, GBL § 627-a was construed to do more than require possession of an AED and trained staff; it was read to impose an affirmative duty supporting negligence liability for failure to use the AED in an emergency.
- Independent of statute, a business proprietor owes a duty of reasonable care that can include providing reasonable emergency assistance to patrons who suffer a medical crisis on the premises.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court accepts the complaint’s allegations as true and generally treats breach and proximate causation as fact questions not suited to resolution on the pleadings.
- Immunity provisions related to emergency assistance and AED use do not automatically bar suit at the pleading stage where their applicability cannot be determined as a matter of law from the complaint alone.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the wrongful-death action to proceed, holding that the complaint plausibly alleged both (1) a statutory negligence claim predicated on GBL § 627-a’s AED requirements and (2) a common-law negligence claim based on failure to provide reasonable emergency assistance, and that immunity defenses could not be resolved on a pre-answer motion to dismiss.


Miglino v. Bally Total Fitness of Greater N.Y., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 148, 937 N.Y.S.2d 63 (2d Dep’t 2011)