Erie County v. Whalen
| Decision Date | 19 May 1977 |
| Parties | ERIE COUNTY et al., Appellants, v. Robert P. WHALEN, As Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Straub, County Atty., Buffalo (Susan C. Goldberg, Buffalo, of counsel), for appellants.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany (Kenneth J. Connolly and Ruth Kessler Toch, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before KOREMAN, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, MAIN, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
OPINION FOR REVERSAL
In October of 1975, petitioners filed vouchers with the New York State Department of Health in which they sought reimbursement for expenditures incurred by them during the third quarter of 1975 for General Public Health Work and a specific Ghetto Medicine Program. Both vouchers sought reimbursement for, inter alia, costs paid by Erie County for certain employee fringe benefits, i. e., contributions for employee health insurance and retirement funds including social security, and on November 18, 1975 and December 4, 1975 the County received its respective reimbursement checks for the Ghetto Medicine Program and General Public Health Work. In each instance, however, no amounts were included for the subject fringe benefits because a regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Health expressly excluded such employee benefits from recoverable costs (10 NYCRR 40.11(1)).
As a result, on March 4, 1976, petitioners commenced the instant proceeding wherein they seek a judgment declaring 10 NYCRR 40.11(1) to be invalid, directing respondents to reimburse Erie County for the fringe benefit expenses and, in the alternative, directing respondents to remit to Erie County an amount of aid allegedly erroneously denied because of an accounting error. Finding that the challenged regulation was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion and that it was founded on a reasonable basis, Special Term dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
Prefatory to our reaching the merits of this case, we would initially consider two preliminary issues. Although petitioners seek both relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 and declaratory relief pursuant to CPLR 3001, in this instance an action for a declaratory judgment seems more appropriate because a review of a quasi-legislative act by the Commissioner and a declaration that a regulation is invalid are sought. In any event, Special Term plainly had jurisdiction of the subject matter (cf. Matter of Severino v. Ingraham, 45 A.D.2d 564, 360 N.Y.S.2d 334), and the action is also not time-barred since it was instituted within four months of the issuance of the reimbursement checks, respondents' final determination denying recovery for the fringe benefits, and even respondents concede that, at minimum, a four months limitations period is applicable.
Turning now to the central question presented, we find upon examination of the relevant statutes that the Commissioner was without authority to deny reimbursement to Erie County for its expenses for employee fringe benefits. In pertinent part, subdivision 1 of section 601 of the Public Health Law provides that:
The appropriations made or to be made for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this article shall be available * * * to the commissioner for the payment of expenses of personal service * * * necessary for the administration of this article.
In our opinion, the Legislature's adoption of the phrase "expenses of personal service" plainly indicates an intention to cover more than just the salaries of personnel and must realistically be interpreted to include the fringe benefits at issue here (cf. Matter of County of Erie v. Hoch, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 227 N.E.2d 399).
Reinforcing this view is the fact that former subdivision 2 of section 19 of the Public Health Law, a predecessor of the present section 605 of the Public Health Law, at one time expressly empowered the Commissioner "to prescribe limitations upon the aid to be granted" to counties for their public health activities. By chapter 1000 of the Laws of 1946, however, the Legislature deleted from the statute this grant of authority to the Commissioner. Presently, as is readily apparent upon examination of the related section 609 of the Public Health Law, the only reference to limits remaining in section 605 refers to the Commissioner's control...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John P. v. Whalen
...and "must not be utilized to defeat the purpose of an enactment or to override 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. H......
-
Pastore v. Sabol
...133 of the Social Services Law, this Article 78 proceeding 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 Y......
-
City of New York v. Blum
...984 (1978) (where by a vote of 6 to 1 the Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division, Third Department 3 to 2 decision, 57 A.D.2d 281, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747, which held that Special Term in a CPLR Article 78 proceeding has CPLR 3001 jurisdiction to declare an administrative regulation (10 N......
-
Achey v. D'Elia
...with Federal law and should be declared invalid. Such a contention is one which this court may entertain. (See, Erie County v. Whalen, 57 A.D.2d 281, 394 N.Y.S.2d 747). RECOVERING Upon first consideration the logic of recovering sums advanced to forestall utility shutoffs from future benefi......