Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has maintained his stance on the controversial COVID-19 nursing home orders after the Supreme Court opted not to hear a wrongful death case tied to those policies. This decision drew a sharp response from Cuomo’s camp, expressing confidence that the legal challenges against him have consistently led to his exoneration.
A Brooklyn man named Daniel Arbeeny brought the suit, asserting that the nursing home policies contributed to his father’s death in 2020. Cuomo’s spokesman, Rich Azzopardi, portrayed the high court’s choice as part of a pattern of absolving the former governor of any alleged misconduct. He stated, “Every investigation and every court to examine these claims has reached the same conclusion: there was no wrongdoing by Governor Cuomo or his administration.”
The case centered on Cuomo’s directives requiring nursing homes to accept hospital patients returning from care facilities without regard for their COVID-19 status—an action meant to prevent overwhelming hospitals during a critical time. Critics, including the plaintiffs, have pointed to the tragic outcomes that followed these orders. Daniel Arbeeny expressed his disappointment with the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the consequences of Cuomo’s decisions cannot simply be dismissed.
Cuomo’s policies were part of a broader response among several Democratic governors during the pandemic, including Pennsylvania’s Tom Wolf and California’s Gavin Newsom. This parallel raises questions about the accountability of these leaders during a crisis that affected countless families across the nation. Arbeeny described the implications of Cuomo’s orders, stating, “The Supreme Court doesn’t erase what was done and the truth of what happened. Nine thousand COVID-positive patients were forced into nursing homes with deadly consequences.”
Despite the legal setbacks, Cuomo’s team has leaned into the argument that independent reviews—conducted by the Justice Department, the New York County district attorney’s office, and the New York State attorney general’s office—supported his administration’s actions. Azzopardi reinforced that these actions were in line with other state policies during the unprecedented health crisis.
Furthermore, Azzopardi cited a New York State Department of Health report indicating that the Cobble Hill nursing home, where Daniel Arbeeny’s father was a patient, began admitting COVID-positive patients only after he left. Cuomo has argued that his mandates were intended to reserve hospital beds for patients in dire need.
Yet, skepticism remains among Cuomo’s critics. New York State Assemblyman Ron Kim pointed to Cuomo’s defensive tactics and suggested that there exists a narrative crafted by his lawyers and public relations team to convey that he has been cleared of wrongdoing. Janice Dean, a prominent media figure whose in-laws died in a nursing home during the pandemic, has openly questioned the integrity of the investigations, hinting at a collusion between Albany and top prosecutors.
The legal and public discourse surrounding Cuomo’s actions continues to evoke strong emotions. The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene does not erase the ongoing pain experienced by families who suffered losses during the pandemic. As Daniel Arbeeny pointedly remarked, the governor’s decisions had tragic, preventable outcomes.
As this narrative unfolds, the impacts of Cuomo’s nursing home policy remain a contentious and painful chapter in New York’s pandemic response, with many still seeking answers and accountability amidst the aftermath. The complexity of the situation illustrates the challenging balance between public policy and the tragic loss of life that characterized this tumultuous period in history.
"*" indicates required fields
