Greater New York Health Care Facilities Ass'n v. DeBuono
| Decision Date | 11 June 1998 |
| Citation | 91 N.Y.2d 716,674 N.Y.S.2d 634,697 N.E.2d 589 |
| Parties | , 697 N.E.2d 589, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 5927 In the Matter of GREATER NEW YORK HEALTH CARE FACILITIES ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners, and Lyden Nursing Home et al., Intervenors-Appellants, v. Barbara DeBUONO, as Commissioner of the State of New York, Department of Health, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The question raised on this appeal is whether the claims of proposed intervenors may be related back to the filing date of the original petition, where proposed intervenors are unrelated to petitioners but similarly aggrieved by the administrative action challenged and their claims would expose respondents to additional liability. We conclude that in the circumstances presented here, proposed intervenors' claims do not relate back to the original petition and, consequently, are time-barred and intervention was properly denied.
Petitioners are an association of nursing homes and eight individual nursing homes which provide services compensable under Medicaid. They commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding in September 1991 challenging the promulgation of regulations by the Department of Health which established Medicaid reimbursement rates applicable to petitioners' facilities. * Petitioners also sought an upward revision of their Medicaid reimbursements for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. Respondents are the Director of the Budget of the State of New York and the Commissioners of the State agencies charged with responsibility for determining rates and reimbursing nursing homes for the care provided to Medicaid patients. Although the caption of the petition purported to sue not only on petitioners' behalf, but also on "Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Residential Health Care Facilities Throughout the State of New York," petitioners never moved for class certification and, with the exception of one limited reference, never otherwise referred to the class in the petition, sought relief on behalf of the class as a whole or pleaded any of the specific characteristics of class actions. Proposed intervenors are eight nursing homes which are not members of petitioners' association but which were similarly adversely affected by the challenged regulations.
In November, 1991, petitioners and respondents stipulated to mark the proceeding off the calendar to await the decision in another proceeding raising the same issue, New York State Health Facilities Assoc., Inc. v. Axelrod, Index No. 2061/90 (the NYSHFA case), then pending in Supreme Court, Albany County. That action was decided in favor of the named petitioners therein and, while an appeal was pending, was settled.
Petitioners and respondents in the instant case commenced settlement negotiations in December, 1995, ultimately agreeing to the same settlement terms as the NYSHFA case. By its terms, the settlement was applicable only to timely claims and also included a procedure for resolving timeliness disputes. Upon discovering that they would not be included in the settlement, proposed intervenors moved on December 15, 1995, to intervene in the case. They asserted that, as a result of petitioners' caption, they had been misled into thinking that their rights were being protected.
Supreme Court conditionally granted the motion on an expedited basis in order to preserve respondents' right to certain Federal funding but allowed respondents to move for reargument within 90 days. Upon reargument, the court ruled that intervention was appropriate because proposed intervenors' claims are "very similar to those of the original petitioners [and] * * * there is no showing of any prejudice." The court further held that because proposed intervenors' claims would be deemed interposed as of the date the proceeding was commenced, the claims were not time-barred.
On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed. Noting that proposed intervenors' claims were "indisputably time-barred" (see, New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. v. McBarnette, 84 N.Y.2d 194, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1, 639 N.E.2d 740), the Court determined that the propriety of intervention turned upon whether proposed intervenors' claims could properly be related back under CPLR 203(f) (242 A.D.2d 211, 213, 661 N.Y.S.2d 618). Because those claims exposed respondents to suits from an unrelated set of claimants and increased respondents' liability under the settlement, the Court concluded that the claims did not relate back. The Appellate Division granted proposed intervenors leave to appeal on the certified question of whether its order was properly made. We answer the certified question in the affirmative, and affirm.
Pursuant to CPLR 7802(d), a court "may allow other interested persons" to intervene in a special proceeding. This provision grants the court broader authority to allow intervention in an article 78 proceeding than is provided pursuant to CPLR 1013 in an action, which requires a showing that the proposed intervenor's "claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact" (see, Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR C7802:4, at 295). Permission to intervene in an article 78 proceeding may be granted at any point of the proceeding, including after judgment for the purposes of taking an appeal (id.). However, a party may not avoid a Statute of Limitations bar by moving to intervene in a pending proceeding after the period of limitations has run (see, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac p 203.30b, at 2-157). Thus, where the proposed intervenor's claim would be barred by the Statute of Limitations, the question arises whether its claim may properly be related back to the filing date of the petition.
Proposed intervenors in the instant case argue that, in the context of an article 78 proceeding, the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohan v. Kuhlmann
... ... United States District Court, S.D. New York ... August 9, 2002 ... Page 232 ... because Bohan's father had promised to take care of her if she testified that Bohan was not the ... ...
-
Hernandez v. State
..."for all purposes" when it was granted permission to intervene as a defendant (Matter of Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v. DeBuono,91 N.Y.2d 716, 720, 674 N.Y.S.2d 634, 697 N.E.2d 589 [1998] ; seeMatter of Rent Stabilization Assn. of N.Y. City v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Co......
-
Allison v. N.Y.C. Landmarks Pres. Comm'n
...defense. It ensures in the first instance against stale claims. [944 N.Y.S.2d 421]Greater N.Y. Health Care Facilities Assn. v. DeBuono, 91 N.Y.2d 716, 721, 674 N.Y.S.2d 634, 697 N.E.2d 589 (1998); New York City Health & Hosp. Corp. v. McBarnette, 84 N.Y.2d 194, 206, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1, 639 N.E.......
-
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. California, CIV. S-04-2265 FCD KJM.
...Patrusky, Mintz, & Semel, No. 90 Civ 1356, 1997 WL 214957 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 1997); Greater New York Health Care Facilities Ass'n v. DeBuono, 91 N.Y.2d 716, 721, 674 N.Y.S.2d 634, 697 N.E.2d 589 (1998) (applying New York state law, holding that a party may be permitted to intervene and rela......