Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled v. Hochul

At a Glance:

On June 22, 2026, Compassion Legal: The End-of-Life Justice Center at Compassion & Choices and WilmerHale, led by Ryan Chabot, filed a motion to intervene on behalf of six New Yorkers in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the New York Medical Aid in Dying Act. The lawsuit,  Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled v. Hochul, sought to prevent the Act from taking effect on August 5, 2026.

However, on July 31, the lawsuit was dismissed in full. Judge Merchant ruled that she did not need to decide whether to formally add the six New Yorkers represented by Compassion Legal and pro bono counsel WilmerHale to the case to make her decision. Compassion & Choices thanks the six dedicated advocates who raised their voices to defend the law on behalf of terminally ill New Yorkers and all New Yorkers who support individual autonomy and access to comprehensive end-of-life healthcare. Because of this dismissal, the law took effect on August 5 as intended. We expect anti-medical aid in dying groups who filed the lawsuit to appeal the judge’s decision.

The Details:

New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act was signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul on February 6, 2026, to give qualified individuals the freedom to make personal, compassionate choices at the end of life.

On June 11, 2026, a group of people and organizations filed a lawsuit to stop New York’s newly passed medical aid-in-dying law from taking effect as planned. The New York lawsuit is very similar to Curran v. Meyer, a lawsuit filed to oppose the implementation of Delaware’s medical aid-in-dying law. Curran v. Meyer was dismissed by a federal judge in Delaware and is currently on appeal in the Third Circuit. The anti-medical aid-in-dying group Institute for Patients’ Rights is also behind similar lawsuits in California and Colorado.

On June 22, 2026, six New Yorkers, with the assistance of Compassion Legal, filed a motion to intervene in BCID v. Hochul in defense of New York’s law. These individuals would be impacted by a delay in the law’s implementation.

Our Intervenors are:

• Dr. Jeremy Boal, a retired geriatrician, palliative care physician, and former Chief Medical Officer of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. Diagnosed with ALS in 2023, Dr. Boal has been a  prominent voice in the fight for New York’s medical aid-in-dying law, an option he feels gives him the peace of mind to live fully.
• Iris Dudman, former local news and public radio reporter, avid gardener, and community organizer. Iris was diagnosed with a recurrence of glioblastoma in November 2025; she wants the option of medical aid in dying.
• Stacey Gibson, a longtime supporter of medical aid in dying whose husband’s death from spinal cerebellar ataxia in 2015 inspired her advocacy. Now living with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and in remission from breast and lung cancer, Stacey wants a choice in the way her life ends.
• Dr. Annie Gurnett Bander, a biochemist who cared for her husband as he died from ALS. In August 2025, Dr. Bander was herself diagnosed with ALS. Just having the option of medical aid in dying, Dr. Bander says, grants her the “space to live boldly.”
• Nancy Murphy, a New York resident who became an advocate for medical aid in dying after her sister, Joan, died peacefully using medical aid in dying in Vermont in 2015. Nancy was diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer in May 2025. She wants the option of a peaceful death, like Joan, surrounded by loved ones.
• Benny Pollak, a software engineer and New York City resident who is living with a disability. A car accident in 1980 left Benny with a severe spinal cord injury, and he is now quadriplegic. Benny has long advocated for control at the end of life and wants the option of medical aid in dying available to him if he should ever qualify.

The Intervenors sought to ensure that medical aid in dying took effect as scheduled in New York so that qualified, terminally ill individuals can have access to the full range of end-of-life healthcare options. The Intervenors argued that New York’s medical aid-in-dying law does not deprive the plaintiffs of any supportive services, but rather provides an additional end-of-life healthcare option that qualified, terminally ill patients can either choose or decline to use in accordance with their values and beliefs. While the case was dismissed and Judge Merchant ruled that she did not need to decide whether to formally add them, we remain grateful for their work and effort to uphold the law.