Hull Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kaladjian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hull Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kaladjian

226 A.D.2d 293, 642 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617

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

DecidedApril 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 293 (Hull Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kaladjian) 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

Hull Avenue Pharmacy, Inc. v. Kaladjian, 226 A.D.2d 293, 642 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on February 9, 1995, which inter alia, granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s Medicaid provider status, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[294]*294The IAS Court properly annulled, respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s participation as a Medicaid provider as arbitrary and capricious, since the evidence failed to support the stated reason for the termination, namely, that petitioner pharmacy carried "misbranded drugs” as defined by Education Law § 6815 (2), and that such would "imminently endanger” the "public health or welfare or the health or welfare of a recipient” if petitioner’s continued participation in the Medicaid program were allowed (18 NYCRR 515.7 [d]). However, even if the reasons stated for the termination were such a violation, we would find, under the established facts here, that the penalty imposed was " ' "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” ’ ” (Schaubman v Blum, 49 NY2d 375, 379.) We have considered respondent-appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on February 9, 1995, which inter alia, granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s Medicaid provider status, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[294]*294The IAS Court properly annulled, respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s participation as a Medicaid provider as arbitrary and capricious, since the evidence failed to support the stated reason for the termination, namely, that petitioner pharmacy carried "misbranded drugs” as defined by Education Law § 6815 (2), and that such would "imminently endanger” the "public health or welfare or the health or welfare of a recipient” if petitioner’s continued participation in the Medicaid program were allowed (18 NYCRR 515.7 [d]). However, even if the reasons stated for the termination were such a violation, we would find, under the established facts here, that the penalty imposed was " ' "so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” ’ ” (Schaubman v Blum, 49 NY2d 375, 379.) We have considered respondent-appellant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 293, 642 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-avenue-pharmacy-inc-v-kaladjian-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack