Katherine Luther Corp. v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katherine Luther Corp. v. Wing

272 A.D.2d 975, 708 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5151

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

DecidedMay 10, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 975 (Katherine Luther Corp. v. Wing) 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

Katherine Luther Corp. v. Wing, 272 A.D.2d 975, 708 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition alleging that the New York State Department of Social Services acted in violation of 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 former (c) by completing an audit of petitioner’s Medicaid reimbursement rates while petitioner’s rate appeal was pending with the New York State Department of Health pursuant to 10 NYCRR 86-2.13 (a). 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 does not apply to receivers or new operators of ongoing facilities (see, 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 [a] [2]). There is no basis for awarding attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 (b) or CPLR article 86 (see, Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn, v Kaladjian, 194 AD2d 189, 193, affd 85 NY2d 346). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition alleging that the New York State Department of Social Services acted in violation of 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 former (c) by completing an audit of petitioner’s Medicaid reimbursement rates while petitioner’s rate appeal was pending with the New York State Department of Health pursuant to 10 NYCRR 86-2.13 (a). 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 does not apply to receivers or new operators of ongoing facilities (see, 10 NYCRR 86-2.15 [a] [2]). There is no basis for awarding attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988 (b) or CPLR article 86 (see, Matter of New York State Clinical Lab. Assn, v Kaladjian, 194 AD2d 189, 193, affd 85 NY2d 346). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Buckley, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 975, 708 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katherine-luther-corp-v-wing-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack