Erie County v. Whalen
| Decision Date | 09 May 1978 |
| Citation | 44 N.Y.2d 817,406 N.Y.S.2d 453 |
| Parties | , 377 N.E.2d 984 ERIE COUNTY et al., Respondents, v. Robert P. WHALEN, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Order affirmed, with costs, on the opinion by Mr. Justice Robert G. Main at the Appellate Division (57 A.D.2d 281, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747).
COOKE, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following opinion.
The order of the Appellate Division, directing entry of a judgment declaring the rule of the Commissioner of Health (10 NYCRR 40.11(l) ) invalid, should be reversed.
We are concerned with the right of a county to reimbursement for expenditures made by it for "fringe benefits", i. e., contributions for employee health insurance and retirement funds including Social Security. The controversy Erie County's right to restitution from the State for such payments made in connection with general public health work comes to us without factual dispute.
On September 24, 1975, Erie County authorities were advised by letter that the Commissioner of Health of the State of New York had approved for State aid reimbursement $8,371,876, of which $6,803,346 was allocated for salaries, wages and fees and $1,568,530 for other maintenance and operation. The missive stated that "Employee Fringe Benefits (Retirement, Social Security Medical Insurance)" were nonreimbursable. During the month following, Erie submitted vouchers to the Department of Health in which reimbursement was sought for employee fringe benefits paid in connection with general public health work and ghetto medicine programs. Thereafter, in November and December, 1975, Erie County received reimbursement checks for expenditures made in these programs, but each instrument excluded amounts claimed for fringe benefits. The nonpayment of these items was consistent with 10 NYCRR 40.11, entitled "Projects or services excluded", which provides so far as pertinent:
In turn, this proceeding was commenced to secure a declaration that subdivision (l) be declared invalid and that respondents reimburse Erie County for fringe benefits expenses, pursuant to the Public Health Law. Special Term dismissed the petition and the Appellate Division, voting 3 to 2, reversed on the law and ordered that judgment be directed to be entered declaring the subdivision invalid and that Erie County be reimbursed for the subject fringe benefits.
Article 6 of the Public Health Law, as its title indicates, deals with the subject of State aid. Within it, section 601 a segment of title I entitled "General Provisions", provides: "The appropriations made or to be made for purposes of carrying out the provisions of this article shall be available * * * for the payment of expenses of personal service". The gist of the county's position is that this statutory language mandates that all personal service expenses must be reimbursed and hence the instant regulation which purports to exclude reimbursement for such fringe benefits is invalid. Also contained within article 6 is title II (State Aid for General Public Health Work: Counties and Cities), and section 605 thereof, entitled "State aid to counties; general public health activities", recites: "Whenever the board of supervisors of any county shall appropriate or otherwise make funds available and expend moneys for the construction, establishment or maintenance by such county of a county, community, or other public hospital, clinic, dispensary or similar institution, or for the purpose of defraying the expenses of such county in any public enterprise or activity for the improvement of the public health, or any public health work undertaken by such county, including any services and facilities provided for children regardless of the school which they legally attend, within limits to be prescribed by the commissioner, such county shall receive state aid in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed in this article unless state aid is otherwise specifically provided for any such purpose by this chapter or any other law" (emphasis supplied).
A reasonable reading of these statutes, considered as positioned in the legislative pattern, demonstrates that section 601 lays down a general guide as to the types of services which might be reimbursable by the State and that section 605 empowers the Commissioner of Health to promulgate regulations as to the scope of reimbursement. Viewed in this light, 10 NYCRR 40.11(l) which excludes contributions by counties for employee health insurance and retirement funds, is consistent with its statutory foundation. This conclusion is confirmed by section 609 which mandates: "It shall be the duty of the commissioner to formulate standards of construction, equipment, service, administration and work which must be complied with by municipalities in order to be entitled to state aid, and no state aid shall be given to any municipality unless the commissioner, after inspection and examination by him or his representative, shall make his certificate that such construction, equipment, service, administration or work is necessary to the public health and conforms to the standards so established therefor, and to the limits prescribed by him as required by sections six hundred five and six hundred six of this chapter" (emphasis supplied). Simply, the Legislature would have made no sense in mentioning "state aid * * * to the limits prescribed by (the commissioner) as required by (section) six hundred five" if reimbursement "of expenses of personal service" is to be without limitation.
The majority at the Appellate Division point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John P. v. Whalen
...the manifest legislative intent" (Erie County v. Whalen, 57 A.D.2d 281, 284, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747, aff'd on App.Div. opn. 44 N.Y.2d 817, 406 N.Y.S.2d 453, 377 N.E.2d 984; accord Matter of Auburn Police Local 195 v. Helsby, 62 A.D.2d 12, 16, 404 N.Y.S.2d 396, affd. on reasoning of App.Div. 46 N.......
-
Pastore v. Sabol
...must be converted to an action for declaratory judgment. (Erie County v. Whalen, 57 A.D.2d 281, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 817, 406 N.Y.S.2d 453, 377 N.E.2d 984; Matter of New York State Coalition of Public Employees v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 89 A.D.2d 283, 456 N.Y.S.2d 465, ......
-
City of New York v. Blum
...a statute. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain this action under CPLR § 3001 or § 7803(3), see e. g., Erie Co. v. Whalen, 44 N.Y.2d 817, 406 N.Y.S.2d 453, 377 N.E.2d 984 (1978) (where by a vote of 6 to 1 the Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division, Third Department 3 to 2 decisi......
-
City School Dist. of City of Elmira v. New York State Public Employment Relations Bd.
...46 N.Y.2d 1034, 416 N.Y.S.2d 586, 389 N.E.2d 1106; Erie County v. Whalen, 57 A.D.2d 281, 284, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747, affd. 44 N.Y.2d 817, 406 N.Y.S.2d 453, 377 N.E.2d 984). Second, the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius is in any event inappropriate here to imply a legislative int......