Count of Erie v. Hoch

New York Court of Appeals

Count of Erie v. Hoch

227 N.E.2d 399, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1557

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 N.E.2d 399 (Count of Erie v. Hoch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Count of Erie v. Hoch, 227 N.E.2d 399, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1557 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The order should be modified, without costs to any party, and the matter remitted to Special Term for the entry of a declaratory judgment declaring that, under the 1965 amendments to the Mental Hygiene Law (§ 190-i, subd. 10; § 191-a, subd. 3, par. a; L. 1965, ch. 647), petitioner-appellant is entitled to 50% reimbursement from the State for all hospitalization insurance, State retirement system and social security payments made by petitioner-appellant since June 28, 1965 for those of its employees engaged in an approved community mental health [856]*856program, and, as modified, affirmed. Under the pertinent provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law as they read prior to June 28, 1965, cities and counties which provided mental health services were entitled to 50% reimbursement from the State for sums expended for ‘1 salaries of qualified and necessary personnel ” and all “ operation, maintenance and service costs ”. It cannot be said that respondent Commissioner of Mental Hygiene abused his discretion by refusing, under this statute, to reimburse petitioner County of Erie for its employer contributions for hospitalization insurance, retirement under the State Employees’ Retirement System and social security coverage. Under the 1965 amendments, however, participating municipalities are now entitled to 50% reimbursement for “ all expenditures * * * incurred by a * * * county for qualified and necessary personnel ”. This language is broad and unambiguous ; therefore, petitioner-appellant is entitled to reimbursement from the State for all sums expended for such employer contributions since the effective date of the new law, June 28, 1965.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Vookhis, Burke, Sctleppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Memorandum. The order should be modified, without costs to any party, and the matter remitted to Special Term for the entry of a declaratory judgment declaring that, under the 1965 amendments to the Mental Hygiene Law (§ 190-i, subd. 10; § 191-a, subd. 3, par. a; L. 1965, ch. 647), petitioner-appellant is entitled to 50% reimbursement from the State for all hospitalization insurance, State retirement system and social security payments made by petitioner-appellant since June 28, 1965 for those of its employees engaged in an approved community mental health [856]*856program, and, as modified, affirmed. Under the pertinent provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law as they read prior to June 28, 1965, cities and counties which provided mental health services were entitled to 50% reimbursement from the State for sums expended for ‘1 salaries of qualified and necessary personnel ” and all “ operation, maintenance and service costs ”. It cannot be said that respondent Commissioner of Mental Hygiene abused his discretion by refusing, under this statute, to reimburse petitioner County of Erie for its employer contributions for hospitalization insurance, retirement under the State Employees’ Retirement System and social security coverage. Under the 1965 amendments, however, participating municipalities are now entitled to 50% reimbursement for “ all expenditures * * * incurred by a * * * county for qualified and necessary personnel ”. This language is broad and unambiguous ; therefore, petitioner-appellant is entitled to reimbursement from the State for all sums expended for such employer contributions since the effective date of the new law, June 28, 1965.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Vookhis, Burke, Sctleppi, Bergan, Keating and Breitel concur.

Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 N.E.2d 399, 19 N.Y.2d 854, 280 N.Y.S.2d 584, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/count-of-erie-v-hoch-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack