Cabrini Medical Center v. Axelrod
| Decision Date | 24 January 1985 |
| Citation | 484 N.Y.S.2d 695,107 A.D.2d 965 |
| Parties | In the Matter of CABRINI MEDICAL CENTER, Appellant, v. David AXELROD, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C. (Harry R. Silver, Washington, D.C., of counsel), and Bond, Schoeneck & King, Albany, for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Alan W. Rubenstein, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, MAIN, CASEY and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 11, 1984 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents' motion to dismiss the petition.
On February 28, 1984, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding for the review of a determination made by the Department of Health not to credit or disperse funds from certain of petitioner's operating escrow accounts for the purchase and installation of a computerized axial tomographic (CAT) scanner and a linear accelerator. This determination had been communicated to petitioner by a letter from the Department of Health's Division of Health Care Financing (DHCF), dated September 22, 1983. Special Term dismissed the petition as not timely commenced within the four-month Statute of Limitations period (CPLR 217). This appeal ensued.
It is petitioner's contention on this appeal that Special Term erred in ruling that the four-month limitations period was triggered by the letter of September 22, 1983, since it contends that this letter did not constitute a final determination of the matter. Petitioner concedes that the letter stated that the issue regarding the CAT scanner and linear accelerator was "closed" and that the findings on this matter were "final" and not "subject to further negotiations or consideration". However, petitioner alleges that after it received this letter, it arranged a meeting with the Director of the Department of Health's Office of Health Systems Management and the Assistant Director of DHCF to discuss the matter further. According to petitioner, this meeting was held on October 28, 1983, and there these officials stated that they would reconsider this issue and advise petitioner of their final decision. After petitioner had heard nothing further regarding this matter over the next three months, it sent a letter to the Assistant Director of DHCF stating that it assumed from his silence that petitioner's request was denied. When petitioner received no response, it commenced the instant article 78 proceeding on February 28, 1984. Hence, it is petitioner's contention that the September 22, 1983 determination was not final and binding in that the two Health Department officials who attended the meeting on October 18, 1983 had allegedly stated at that meeting that they would reconsider the matter. Petitioner therefore concludes that the four-month limitations period of CPLR 217 was not triggered by the letter of September 22, 1983.
Initially, two controlling principles should be noted. First, an administrative determination is final and binding when it has an impact upon a petitioner (Matter of Filut v. New York State Educ. Dept., 91 A.D.2d 722, 723, 457 N.Y.S.2d 643, mot. for lv. to app. den. 58 N.Y.2d 609, 462 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 449 N.E.2d 426). In the instant case, the determination had an impact on petitioner on the date it received the letter of September 22, 1983, which, petitioner states, was during the last week of September, 1983.
Second, we note that this court, in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerasimou By Gerasimou v. Ambach
...commences to run for an Article 78 proceeding when the affected party has notice of a determination. Cabrini Medical Center v. Axelrod, 107 A.D.2d 965, 484 N.Y.S.2d 695 (3d Dep't 1985); Bernstein v. Popolizio, 97 A.D.2d 735, 468 N.Y.S.2d 888 (1st Dep't 1983); Kaufman v. Anker, 66 A.D.2d 851......
-
Briarwood Manor Prop. LLC v. Cnty. of Niagara
...sales price is inconsequential inasmuch as the proposal was withdrawn and never enacted (see generally Matter of Cabrini Med. Ctr. v. Axelrod, 107 A.D.2d 965, 966–967, 484 N.Y.S.2d 695 ), and it is irrelevant that Mount View, rather than Tosetto, was the eventual purchaser because the resol......
-
Board of Educ., Lakeland Cent. School Dist. of Shrub Oak v. State Educ. Dept. of State of N.Y.
...the disallowed amount (Solnick v. Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224, 228-229, 425 N.Y.S.2d 68, 401 N.E.2d 190; Matter of Cabrini Med. Center v. Axelrod, 107 A.D.2d 965, 966, 484 N.Y.S.2d 695; Park Shore Manor Health Related Facility v. Axelrod, 85 A.D.2d 873, 446 N.Y.S.2d I am unpersuaded by petitioner......
-
Wing v. Coyne
...petitioners (see, Matter of Edmead v. McGuire, 67 N.Y.2d 714, 716, 499 N.Y.S.2d 934, 490 N.E.2d 853; Matter of Cabrini Med. Center v. Axelrod, 107 A.D.2d 965, 966, 484 N.Y.S.2d 695). The focus of petitioners' challenge is on the procedural and substantive requirements of SEQRA, not on the p......