CRANDALL CONSULTING
HomeWebsite Tracking Cases › Kaplan v. Northwell Health, Inc.

Kaplan v. Northwell Health, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

New York State Supreme Court, Kings County
Court
New York
Jurisdiction
2026-04-23
Decision Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: Case No. 520763/2025

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

A class action titled Kaplan v. Northwell Health, Inc. in New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, alleges that Northwell disclosed patients' PII via tracking technologies. The parties reached a settlement that the court approved by Final Approval Order on April 23, 2026; a Notice of Appeal has been filed challenging that approval.

Litigation Status

On appeal
Current Status
Plaintiff-favorable (as reported)
Reported Outcome Direction
Settlement
Ruling Stage
None identified
Precedential Weight

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Class action settlement reached; Final Fairness Hearing scheduled for April 21, 2026; Final Approval Order issued April 23, 2026; a Notice of Appeal has been filed challenging the Final Approval Order.

Reported Holding

The court issued a Final Approval Order for a class action settlement on April 23, 2026; a Notice of Appeal was filed in response to that Final Approval Order.

What the Court Decided

The court approved the class action settlement and issued a Final Approval Order on April 23, 2026.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Settlement website states the Settlement does not establish which party is correct and does not resolve the underlying merits of the alleged claims.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

Statutes Invoked

No specific statutes have been identified in tracked sources for this matter.

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the settlement stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.

Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?

Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.

Scan My Website