Erie County v. Hoch
| Decision Date | 20 April 1967 |
| Parties | , 227 N.E.2d 399 In the Matter of the COUNTY OF ERIE, Appellant, v. Paul H. HOCH, as Commissioner of Mental Hygiene of the State of New York et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Norman A. Stiller, County Atty. (Milton S. Weisberg, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Robert L. Harrison and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
The order should be modified, without costs to any party, and the matter remitted to Special Term for the entry of a declaratory judgment declaring that, under the 1965 amendments to the Mental Hygiene Law, Consol.Laws, c. 27 (), petitioner-appellant is entitled to 50% Reimbursement from the State for all hospitalization insurance, State retirement system and social security payments made by petitioner-appellant since June 28, 1965 for those of its employees engaged in an approved community mental health program, and, as modified, affirmed. Under the pertinent provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law as they read prior to June 28, 1965, cities and counties which provided mental health services were entitled to 50% Reimbursement from the State for sums expended for 'salaries of qualified and necessary personnel' and all 'operation, maintenance and service costs'. It cannot be said that respondent Commissioner of Mental Hygiene abused his discretion by refusing, under this statute, to reimburse petitioner County of Erie for its employer contributions for hospitalization insurance, retirement under the State Employees' Retirement System and social security coverage. Under the 1965 amendments, however, participating municipalities are now entitled to 50%. reimbursement for 'all expenditures * * * incurred by a * * * county for qualified and necessary personnel'. This language is broad and unambiguous; therefore, petitioner-appellant is entitled to reimbursement from the State for all sums expended for such employer contributions since the effective date of the new law, June 28, 1965.
Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilligoss v. LaDow
...from the employee's regular salary. E. g., County of Erie v. Hoch (1966) 26 A.D.2d 4, 270 N.Y.S.2d 225, modified, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 227 N.E.2d 399. Fortunately, we are not without some guidance in ascertaining which of these two alternative approaches the General Assembly int......
-
Erie County v. Whalen
... ... Both sides attempt to draw support from Matter of County of Erie v. Hoch, 47 Misc.2d 452, 262 N.Y.S.2d 936, affd 26 A.D.2d 4, 270 N.Y.S.2d 225, mod. 19 N.Y.2d 584, 280 N.Y.S.2d 854, 227 N.E.2d 399). There, a county, the same as involved here, challenged a refusal by the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene to reimburse it for the same fringe benefits in suit here, under ... ...
-
City of New York v. State, 52436
...(Matter of County of Erie v. Hoch, 47 Misc.2d 452, 262 N.Y.S.2d 936, affd., 26 A.D.2d 4, 270 N.Y.S.2d 225, mod., 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 227 N.E.2d 399). It is clear that the 'practical construction' of the statute was common knowledge and the Legislature was certainly aware of it.......
-
City of Reno v. McGowan
...System v. Frohmiller, 60 Ariz. 485, 140 P.2d 614 (1943). The broad and unambiguous words of the statute (Erie County v. Hoch, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 227 N.E.2d 399 (1967)) tell us that the money in the Cigarette Tax Fund on July 1, 1967 was to be disbursed pursuant to the law in e......