Coalition of Institutionalized Aged & Disabled, Inc. v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coalition of Institutionalized Aged & Disabled, Inc. v. Perales

200 A.D.2d 704, 608 N.Y.S.2d 870

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 704 (Coalition of Institutionalized Aged & Disabled, Inc. v. Perales) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coalition of Institutionalized Aged & Disabled, Inc. v. Perales, 200 A.D.2d 704, 608 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for judgment declaring that 18 NYCRR 490.3 (f) (2); 490.7 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), and 490.9 (f) (3) are null and void, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered May 13, 1991, as declared that the respondent properly promulgated 18 NYCRR 490.3 (f) (2); 490.7 (e) (i) and (iv) [(sic) 490.7 (e) (1) (i) and (iv)], and 490.9 (f) (3).

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the term "490.7 (e) (i), (iv)” and substituting therefor "490.7 (e) (1) (i), (iv)”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the promulgated regulations at issue do not substantially deviate from the sections originally proposed by the respondent Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York. Accordingly, the Commissioner was not required to conduct a second notice and comment period prior to promulgating the regulations (see, Siegal v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 143 AD2d 430; Matter of Summerson v Barber, 93 AD2d 652). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action for judgment declaring that 18 NYCRR 490.3 (f) (2); 490.7 (e) (1) (i) and (iv), and 490.9 (f) (3) are null and void, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered May 13, 1991, as declared that the respondent properly promulgated 18 NYCRR 490.3 (f) (2); 490.7 (e) (i) and (iv) [(sic) 490.7 (e) (1) (i) and (iv)], and 490.9 (f) (3).

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the term "490.7 (e) (i), (iv)” and substituting therefor "490.7 (e) (1) (i), (iv)”; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the promulgated regulations at issue do not substantially deviate from the sections originally proposed by the respondent Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York. Accordingly, the Commissioner was not required to conduct a second notice and comment period prior to promulgating the regulations (see, Siegal v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, 143 AD2d 430; Matter of Summerson v Barber, 93 AD2d 652). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 704, 608 N.Y.S.2d 870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coalition-of-institutionalized-aged-disabled-inc-v-perales-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack