Engelsher v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 13 March 1959
• Citation: 5 N.Y.2d 370,184 N.Y.S.2d 640,157 N.E.2d 626
• Parties: , 157 N.E.2d 626 In the Matter of Charles L. ENGELSHER, as Director, Owner and Licensee of Parkchester General Hospital, Appellant, v. Morris A. JACOBS, as Commissioner of Hospitals of the City of New York and asChairman of the Board of Hospitals of the City of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 640

184 N.Y.S.2d 640

5 N.Y.2d 370, 157 N.E.2d 626

In the Matter of Charles L. ENGELSHER, as Director, Owner

and Licensee of Parkchester General Hospital, Appellant, v. Morris A. JACOBS, as Commissioner of Hospitals of the City

of New York and asChairman of the Board of

Hospitals of the City of New York, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 13, 1959.

Menahem Stim and Allen S. Stim, New York City, for appellant.

Raymond Rubin, New York City, for Association of Private Hospitals, Inc., amicus curiae, in support of appellant's position.

Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Alfred Weinstein, Seymour B. Quel and Joseph Entel, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

BURKE, Judge.

This article 78 proceeding was instituted by petitioner to compel the Board of Hospitals of the City of New York to issue to him a license permitting him to operate a private proprietary hospital. The board had denied the application since petitioner had not complied with new regulations of the New York City Hospital, Code, which became effective on October 1, 1956. This code superseded prior regulations, and was promulgated pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 583-a of the New York City Charter. The code made some changes in the rules and regulations governing the maintenance and operation of private proprietary hospitals. These regulations required that, in other than private rooms, each bed must have a floor area of 70 square feet. Insofar as private rooms were concerned, those hospitals licensed before 1956 were to have this same minimum floor area; those first licensed after the effective date of the new regulations were required to provide 100 square feet of floor area. The regulations also required an increase in the nursing staff for such hospitals.

Special Term denied petitioner's application to review and annul the determination of the board. This order was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Petitioner claims that insofar as the new regulations require a minimum floor area for each bed, and an increase in the professional nursing staff, they not only constitute unreasonable discrimination, but also violate the due process provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. U.S.Const., 14th Amendment; N.Y.Const., art. 1, § 6. In regards to the equal protection argument, it is urged that since these regulations do not equally apply to municipal hospitals and voluntary nonprofit hospitals, as well as private proprietary hospitals, there is unreasonable discrimination.

The police power of the State is the least limitable of all the powers of government. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135, 155, 41 S.Ct. 458, 65 L.Ed. 865; Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80, 83, 66 S.Ct. 850, 90 L.Ed. 1096. 'A legitimate public purpose may always be served without regard to the constitutional limitations of due process and equal protection'. People v. Arlen Service Stations, 284 N.Y. 340, 344, 31 N.E.2d 184, 185; People v. Perretta, 253 N.Y. 305, 309, 171 N.E. 72, 73, 84 A.L.R. 636; People ex rel. Durham Realty Corp. v. La Fetra, 230 N.Y. 429, 130 N.E. 601, 16 A.L.R. 152; New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 49 S.Ct. 61, 73 L.Ed. 184.

It cannot be disputed that hospitals come directly within the ambit of the police power since they are institutions which directly deal with the health of the citizenry. Where the hospital has been instituted by some branch of the government be it local or State the hospital is already under the direct control of the Government. Such is the case, for example, with municipal hospitals in the City of New York. These hospitals are, under the New York City Charter, to be maintained and operated by the Department of Hospitals of that city (New York City Charter, § 583-a, subd. 1). Nonprofit voluntary institutions are not subject to the regulation of the Department of Hospitals (New York City Charter, § 583-a, subd. 2; see, e. g., Social Welfare Law, § 21; 1948 Atty.Gen. 247). It is only private proprietary hospitals which come within the licensing and regulatory power of the Department of Hospitals. The New York City Charter authorizes the Board of Hospitals to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for private proprietary hospitals to promote the public health and welfare (New York City Charter, § 583-a, subd. 2). Thus, we can see that the Legislature itself, in respect to private proprietary hospitals in New York City, has established them in a separate class and has subjected them to special rules and regulations by the Board of Hospitals. It is easy to see why such a distinction was made. These other institutions come under the close scrutiny of either the city or the State; private hospitals, without regulation, do not, see People ex rel. Wagner v. Hagan, 52 App.Div. 387, 389, 65 N.Y.S. 120, 121.

Furthermore, while these regulations apply only in terms to private proprietary hospitals, it is not shown and, indeed, the record is devoid of any evidence as to whether there are any similar regulations in other statutes or rules applicable to city hospitals or voluntary hospitals.

Under the regulations in question, all private proprietary hospitals are treated alike. Equal protection is accomplished when all of the same class are treated in a like manner. Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra. That one class is treated differently than other classes can give rise to no complaint under the equal protection clause.

It is urged that the hospital in question was conducted in compliance with the regulations in the superseded hospital code, and the new hospital code which reduces the bed capacity of the hospital constitutes an unlawful taking, violating due process of law. The argument, in effect, is that petitioner has a 'non-conforming use', which was exercised prior to the effective date of the new regulations, and, therefore, should be permitted to continue in effect as long as petitioner continues in business or chooses to operate under the former regulations. It is clearly settled that 'in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against the exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with existing laws'. Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, supra, 328 U.S. at page 83, 66 S.Ct. at page 852; see, also, Hadacheck v. Los Angeles, 239 U.S. 394, 410, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348; Hutchinson v. Valdosta, 227 U.S. 303, 33 S.Ct. 290, 57 L.Ed. 520. If authority is needed for such a proposition in this State, Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church, 145 N.Y. 32, 43-44, 39 N.E. 833, 836, 837, 27 L.R.A. 710, will substantiate this position.

The only question then that we must consider in this case is the reasonableness of the regulations. There can be no doubt that they are calculated to promote the health and welfare of the public generally. Health Dept. v. Rector, Church Wardens & Vestrymen of Trinity Church, supra, suggests that the cost of expenditures incurred as a result of the legislation must be reasonable. Where there are two or more beds in a room, the minimum space requirements can be readily met by the removal of one or more beds. Hence, the main loss here is the loss of future profit. We cannot say as a matter of law that the minimum space requirements are unreasonable as a matter of law, and hence it follows that the Board of Hospitals did not act in an arbitrary manner in refusing a license to petitioner under the regulations.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

VAN VOORHIS, Judge (dissenting).

The problems presented by this litigation have their origin in an amendment to the Hospital Code and Regulations promulgated by the New York City Board of Hospitals (§ 56, subd. 4), effective October 1, 1956, which enlarged the floor area required to be occupied by each bed in double rooms in a proprietary hospital, and added to the number of professional nurses required to be in attendance. Appellant claims to have complied with these nursing requirements, but objects to increasing the floor space to be occupied by each bed in other than single rooms from about 62.5 square feet, as formerly, to 70 square feet, as newly required. In adopting the new regulation, the Board of Hospitals took account of the fact that it would be difficult to reconstruct existing single rooms so as to enlarge the floor space, and therefore provided that each single room in institutions licensed before October 1, 1956 might continue to have a floor area of at least 70 square feet, whereas new hospitals, licensed after that date, would be required to have a minimum floor area of 100 square feet. When it came to other than single rooms, however, no corresponding dispensation was allowed in the case of existing structures. The new regulation directs that each bed in other than single private rooms shall have a floor area of at least 70 square feet. The problem introduced by this requirement is that there are numerous private rooms designed for two patients with a space area of 125 square feet. That allows 62.5 feet to each bed. Unless the hospital is rebuilt in these areas, the requirement that each bed shall occupy a space of at least 70 square feet would require removal of one of these beds, leaving an area of 125 square feet for the other bed. That would be much larger than any minimum requirement for existing or newly constructed single rooms. The consequence would be to reduce the authorized bed capacity of this hospital from 130 beds to 100 beds.

This hospital was constructed in 1929. It was bought by appellant in 1940, and has been operated by him since that date. Licenses for its operation have been issued annually by the city's Department of Hospitals. During the previous 25 years, no minimum floor area was prescribed for each bed it being simply required that 'All beds used for patients shall be at least three feet apart where arranged in series and...