Court Opinion

ID: 9929202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:42.782799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:40.362382
License: Public Domain

Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v
                         Zucker
               2022 NY Slip Op 34683(U)
                     January 31, 2022
              County Court, Albany County
         Docket Number: Index No. 901450-21
                  Judge: Debra J. Young
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2022 02:28 PM                                                INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2022

                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                 COUNTY COURT    COUNTY OF ALBANY

                 In the Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing Home, Inc.; Affinity Skilled Living and
                 Rehabilitation Center; Autumn View Health Care Facility, LLC; Avon Nursing Home,
                 LLC; Bainbridge Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC; Brookhaven Health Care
                 Facility, LLC; Central Park Rehabilitation and Nursing Center; Conesus Lake Nursing
                 Home, LLC; Forest View Center for Rehabilitation and Nursing; Garden Gate Health
                 Care Facility, LLC; Harris Hill Nursing Facility, LLC; Hornell Gardens, LLC; Newark
                 Manor Nursing Home Inc.; North Gate Health Care Facility, LLC; Palm Gardens Care
                 Center For Nursing and Rehabilitation; Park Ridge Nursing Home D/B/A Park Ridge
                 Living Center; Penfield Place, LLC; Seneca Health Care Center, LLC; Seneca Nursing
                 & Rehabilitation Center, LLC; The Brightonian, Inc.; The Hurlbut, LLC; The Shore
                 Winds, LLC; Unity Living Center,

                                               Plaintiffs-Petitioners,

                 For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78                        DECISION AND ORDER
                 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules,          (Acting Justice Debra J. Young, Presiding)

                       -against-

                 Howard Zucker, M.D., as Commissioner of Health
                 of the State of New York, or his Successor in Office,

                                            Defendant-Respondent.

                 (Supreme Court, Albany County, Special Term)
                 Index No. 901450-21, RJI No. 01-21-ST1536)

                 Appearances:

                 Harter Secrest & Emery LLP
                 (F. Paul Greene, Esq., of Counsel)
                 (Christina M. Deats, Esq., of Counsel)
                 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners
                 1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
                 Rochester, New York 14604-2711

                 Leticia James
                 Attorney General of the State of New York
                 Attorney for Respondents Betty A. Rosa and New York State Department of Education
                 (C. Harris Dague, Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel)
                 The Capitol                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                      I
                 Albany, New York 12224                                                                               !

                                                                                                                      I

                                                         1 of 3
[* 1]
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2022 02:28 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2022

                 Young, J.:

                         ·Petitioner commenced these combined Article 78 proceeding/declaratory
                 judgment actions seeking: a writ of mandamus compelling defendant-respondent to
                 timely process plaintiffs-petitioners' pending Medicaid rate appeals, or in the alternative
                 promulgate regulations sufficient to address this backlog in a manner consistent with
                 relevant state and federal law and regulation; a declaration that defendant-respondent's
                 delay in processing Medicaid rate appeals is violative of applicable federal and state law
                 and regulation, as well as Public Health Law§ 2808(17)(a); enjoining defendant-
                 respondent's policy of only processing rate appeals for residential care facilities
                 demonstrating "substantial financial hardship" because it is an unlawful promulgated
                 regulation; otherwise enjoining defendant-respondent's refusal to process plaintiffs-
                 petitioners' Medicaid rate appeals as violative of substantive and procedural due process
                 rights; payment of attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 USC § 198; and award to plaintiffs-
                 petitioners such other relief as the Court deems just and necessary.

                          Defendant-respondent answered asserting objections in point of law and
                 affirmative defenses that the petition fails to state a cause of action;· that under the
                 Appellate Division Fourth Department's Woodside Manor Nursing Home v Shah (113
                 AD3d 1142 (2014]), plaintiffs-petitioners have no clear legal right to a writ of mandamus
                 and there is no corresponding nondiscretionary duty on the part of the judge to grant
                 mandamus relief under CPLR Article 7803 (1); plaintiffs-petitioners have-no private right
                 of action under 42 CFR 447.253 (e) and 42 CFR 447.45; and defendant-respondent's
                 actions are fully consistent with controlling law. DefendanHespondent moves for
                 summary judgment on the declaratory judgment and constitutional claims seeking
                 dismissal of those claims and requests dismissal of the petition and such other and further
                 relief as the Court deems just and proper.

                        The Parties appeared for oral argument on December 23, 2021.

                         The Court is not authorized simply to substitute its judgment for that of the agency
                 responsible for making the determination (Flacke v Onondaga Landfill Sys., 69 NY2d 355,
                 363 [1987]; Awl Industries, Inc. v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. 41 AD3d 141,
                 142 [ 2007]). The scope of judicial review of such administrative determinations is limited
                 to analyzing whether (1) respondent agency took the action without or in excess of its
                 jurisdiction or (2) respondent's determination was (a) made in violation of lawful
                 procedure or of positive statutory or constitutional requirements, (b) affected by an error
                 of law, (c) an abuse of discretion, or (d) arbitrary and capricious in that the agency took
                 action without a sound basis in reason or without regard for the facts .. Barring such wrongs,
                 the Court must confirm the determination (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free
                 School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d
                 222,231 [1974]).

                          "Mandamus is available ... only to enforce a clear legal right where the public
                 official has failed to perform a duty enjoined by law. Thus, mandamus does not lie to
                 enforce the performance of a duty that is discretionary, as opposed to ministerial. A
                 discretionary act involves the exercise ofreasoned judgment which could typically
                 produce different acceptable results whereas a ministerial act envisions direct adherence
                 to a governing rule or standard with a compuls01y result" (Matter of NY Civ. Liberties
                 Union v State, 4 NY3d 175, 184 [2005]).

                                                        2 of 3
[* 2]
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 01/31/2022 02:28 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/31/2022

                         Petitioners have not demonstrated that they have a clear legal right to compel the
                 processing of appeals as the Commissioner is vested with discretion in resolving rate
                 appeals (see Public Health Law§ 2808 [17][b]; Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing
                 Home v Shah, 113 AD3d 1142 [2014]). Notably, insofar as the determination of the rate
                 appeals "is in its nature judicial, or involves the exercise of judicial power or discretion,
                 irrespective of the general character of the officer or body to which the writ is addressed",
                 the "writ of mandamus may [be used] to compel them to exercise their functions, but
                 never to require them to decide in a particular manner" (Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d
                 525,540 [1984]). "The time frame is not ministerial but discretionary and mandamus to
                 compel will generally not lie" (Matter of Arnot-Ogden Medical Ctr. v Chassin, 229
                 AD2d 833, 836 [1996]).

                          While this Court can compel respondent/defendant to exercise their function it
                 cannot dictate the manner of such exercise. While this Court does not condone undue
                 delay in the processing of rate appeals it is also extremely cognizant of the economic
                 realities facing this state including but not limited to workforce shortages and limitations
                 in view of the world-wide Covid-19 epidemic. What constitutes a reasonable period (see
                 generally Public Health Law§ 2808 [17]) must be tempered with the realities of the
                 current economic and health conditions faced in this state. Given the discretion vested in
                 the Department of Health, petitioners' remedy if any lies with the Legislature.

                         Petitioners'/plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment is denied in view of the
                 foregoing. Moreover, the filings before this Court demonstrate that respondent/defendant
                 was not processing only or substantially only rate appeals from entities suffering from
                 significant hardship. Nor can this Court find on the papers before it that there has been a
                 violation of due process or procedural due process.

                   To the extent that the petitioners'/plaintiffs' remaining arguments have not been
                 addressed specifically, they are found to be without merit.

                        It is hereby,

                        ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED that petitioners'/plaintiffs' requests
                 are denied/dismissed in their entirety.

                        This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                        No attorneys' fees, costs or disbursements are awarded to any party.

                         SO ORDERED.
                         ENTER.

                 Dated: Troy, New York
                        January~~ , 2022

                                                        3 of 3                    01/31/2022
[* 3]