Court Opinion

ID: 9929201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:41.535801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:40.593513
License: Public Domain

Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v
                         Zucker
               2022 NY Slip Op 34684(U)
                     August 12, 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 08/12/2022 12:46 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2022

                 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. 0l-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)
                  (Michael G. McCartin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Special Counsel of Counsel)
                  The Capitol
                  Albany, New York 12224

                                                        1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2022 12:46 PM                                            INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2022

                 Young, J.:

                        This Court issued a Decision and Order dated January 31, 2022. Plaintiffs-
                 Petitioners now move to reargue and renew that determination. Defendant-
                 Respondent opposes. The parties appeared for oral argument on June 27, 2022.

                         Plaintiffs-Petitioners specifically argue that this Court erred because
                 Klostermann is controlling and therefore mandamus is available to compel
                 mandatory government action even if such action involves discretion. Plaintiffs-
                 Petitioners further argue that this Court failed to address the mandamus claim for
                 relief in relation to PHL § 2808(17)(c). Plaintiffs-Petitioners also argue that this
                 Court did not take into account defendant-respondent's admission that the deadline.
                 for processing appeals is one year from filing. Plaintiffs-Petitioners also assert
                 that the Court ignored clear issues of fact permeating plaintiffs'-petitioners'
                 substantive claims.

                        At oral argument plaintiffs-petitioners asserted that they were not seeking
                 payment but rather just that the appeals be decided. Plaintiffs-Petitioners argue
                 that mandamus lies to compel them to do something-decide the appeals pending
                 longer than one year. Plaintiffs-petitioners assert that whether they win or lose
                 does not matter they just want errors corrected. They further argue that Arnot-
                 Ogden was case specific and not a general rule. Plaintiffs-petitioners argue that a
                 question of fact exists warranting discovery of, at a minimum, a record on return.

                          In opposition, defendant-respondent asserts that this Court's determination ·
                  was reasonable, correct and thoughtful and properly based on Woodside I being
                . controlling. Defendant-Respondent argues that plaintiffs-petitioners have not
                  established their entitlement to reargue or renewal of the case and are simply
                  trying to get a second bite of the apple. Defendant-Respondent further argues that
                  there is no basis for plaintiffs-petitioners' motion to amend as the prior
                  determination is res judicata and cannot be resurrected by a new pleading.
                  Defendant-Respondent argues that Woodside I decided the issues raised by
                  plaintiffs-petitioners and that this Court's decision should hold. Defendant-
                  Respondent alleges that 3500 appeals remain to be determined but that they
                  continue to make a diligent effort.

                        In reply, plaintiffs/petitioners assert that defendant/respondent does not
                 have "full discretion" to determine when or if they will process a duly submitted
                 nursing home Medicaid rate appeal. Plaintiffs/Petitioners further argue that
                 caselaw does not bar the relief sought herein. Plaintiffs/Petitioners argue that they
                 have a clear protected interest in accurate payment for services rendered.
                 Plaintiffs/Petitioners argue that defendant/respondent has not set forth any
                 substantive opposition to plaintiffs' /petitioners' motion to renew. In addition,
                 plaintiffs-petitioners assert in reply that Woodside I relates to mandamus only not
                 declaratory judgment. They further argue that Woodside I dealt with the cap and
                 here the cap was underspent by 24 million in the last four years.

                                                     2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2022 12:46 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2022

                         A motion for leave to reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the
                 Court and may be granted only upon a showing that the Court overlooked,
                 misapplied or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason mistakenly
                 arrived at its earlier decision (CPLR § 2221[d][2]; Spa Realty Associates v Springs
                 Associates, 213 AD2d 781, 783; Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d
                 863, 865). CPLR § 2221 motions are not intended to afford unsuccessful parties
                 repetitive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided (Foley v Roche. 68_
                 AD2d 558, 567; Matter of Mayer v National Arts Club, 192 AD2d 863, 865); Pahl
                 Equipment Corporation v Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27, Iv den, dsmd 80 NY2d 1005).
                 Pursuant to CPLR § 2221 (e), a motion for leave to renew shall "be based upon new
                 facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination ..."
                 and shall contain 'reasonable justification' for the failure to present such facts on
                 the prior motion." Those new or additional facts should have been unknown to the
                 party seeking renewal at the time of the original motion (Gulledge v Adams, 108
                 AD2d 950).

                 .       As no new facts are established, plaintiffs' ~petitioners' motion for renewal is
                 denied. As to the motion to reargue, it is denied as the Court did not overlook,
                 misapply or misapprehend the facts or the law. Notably, Woodside I applies as set_
                 forth in this Court's prior Decision and Order dated January 31, 2022.

                         Public Health Law§ 2808 (l 7)(b) provides a discretionary framework for
                 the processing of appeals 1• The pertinent statutory language set forth in Public
                 Health Law§ 2808 (17) (b) provides that "the commissioner shall, in prioritizing
                 such rate appeals, include consideration of which facilities the commissioner
                 determines are facing significant financial hardship as well as such other
                 considerations as the commissioner deems appropriate" (Public Health Law§
                 2808 [Consol., Lexis Advance through 2022 released Chapters 1-381]). The
                 Legislature further enacted Public Health Law § 2808 (17) (c) which provides in
                 pertinent part that "the commissioner shall promulgate "regulations ... establishing
                 priorities and time frames for processing rate appeals ... provided, however, that
                 such regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of paragraph (b) of
                 this subdivision." Thus, the statutory language of Public Health Law§ 2808 (17)
                 (c) did not take away the commissioner's ability to take into account factors that
                 were not set forth in regulations promulgated by defendant-respondent. To the
                 extent that defendant-respondent has not promulgated regulations in accord with
                 the directive set forth by the Legislature it is directed to do so, as the Legislature's

                 1 Notably, Public Health Law§ 2808 (17) (b) was enacted to alleviate the State's increasing fiscal crisis in
                 2010. Importantly, it placed a temporary moratorium on the consideration of Medicaid reimbursement
                 rate appeals by the Department of Health and a monetary cap on the amount of money that DOH can
                 spend in any fiscal year on reimbursement rates that are revised as a result of rate appeals, and remains
                 in full force and effect.

                                                                3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 08/12/2022 12:46 PM                                              INDEX NO. 901450-21
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 103                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/12/2022

                 use of the word "shall" is not subject to interpretation, but rather directs defendant-
                 respondent to act.
                        It is hereby,

                        ORDERED, that the motion to reargue and renew is denied.

                        To the extent that there are arguments made that are not directly addressed
                 herein, they are deemed to be without merit.

                        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
                       August \'d-, 2022

                                                                 ~-~   08/12/2022

                                                     4 of 4
[* 4]