Reliance Ambulette, Inc. v. Rosen

• Citation: 181 A.D.3d 533,121 N.Y.S.3d 258
• Decision Date: 26 March 2020
• Docket Number: 11263,Index 160717/16
• Parties: In re RELIANCE AMBULETTE, INC., Petitioner, v. Dennis ROSEN, etc., et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 533
121 N.Y.S.3d 258

In re RELIANCE AMBULETTE, INC., Petitioner,
v.
Dennis ROSEN, etc., et al., Respondents.

11263
Index 160717/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: MARCH 26, 2020

Smith Mazure Director Wilkins Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Alan M. Sclar of counsel), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Amit R. Vora of counsel), for respondents.

Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Oing, Gonza´lez, JJ.

121 N.Y.S.3d 259

Determination of respondent New York State Department of Health, dated August 23, 2016, which affirmed a determination of the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG), after a hearing, that petitioner received overpayments of Medicaid reimbursements totaling $2,659,293.15, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Lynn R. Kotler, J.], entered August 14, 2017), unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports OMIG's determination that petitioner received overpayments of Medicaid reimbursements for claims where petitioner's drivers were either not licensed by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), or had missing or inaccurate information in their claims (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights , 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180–181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). OMIG correctly determined that 18 NYCRR 505.10 requires both ambulette owners and drivers who provide services in the City of New York to be licensed by the TLC in order to receive reimbursement (see Department of Social Services Regulations [ 18 NYCRR] § 505.10 [e][6][ii] ).

The parties' communications and the conduct described in the final OMIG report provided petitioner with sufficient notice of the charges, and petitioner thus had an adequate opportunity to prepare its defense (see generally Matter of Franklin St. Realty Corp. v. NYC Envtl. Control Bd., 164 A.D.3d 19, 24–25, 83 N.Y.S.3d 41 [1st Dept. 2018], affd 34...