Matter of County of Delaware v. Zucker

135 A.D.3d 1260, 23 N.Y.S.3d 595
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2016
Docket519940
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 A.D.3d 1260 (Matter of County of Delaware v. Zucker) 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
Matter of County of Delaware v. Zucker, 135 A.D.3d 1260, 23 N.Y.S.3d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lambert, J.), entered October 3, 2014 in Delaware County, which, among other things, partially granted petitioner’s application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, among other things, annul a determination of respondent Department of Health denying petitioner’s claims for certain Medicaid reimbursements.

The issues in this Medicaid reimbursement case are largely controlled by a series of recent decisions of this Court, which were decided after Supreme Court’s decision. Although Supreme Court incorrectly declared that the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute (see L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, §61) was unconstitutional (see Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Shah, 124 AD3d 88, 92 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]; see also Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 124 AD3d 963, 964 [2015], lv granted 25 NY3d 903 [2015]), it properly concluded that petitioner was entitled to reimbursement for pre-2006 overburden expenses since such claims were submitted within the six-month grace period (see Matter of County of Broome v Shah, 130 AD3d 1347, 1347 [2015]; Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 124 AD3d at 964). “[RJespondents’ challenge to petitioner’s capacity to bring this claim was waived by respondents’ failure to raise capacity as a defense in their answer or a pre-answer motion to dismiss” (Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, 124 AD3d at 964; see Matter of County of Broome v Shah, 130 AD3d at 1347-1348). Finally, we agree with respondents that Supreme Court erred in directing them to pay interest on the reimbursement payments (see Signature Health Ctr., LLC v State of New York, 92 AD3d 11, 17 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 811 [2012]; Concourse Nursing Home v State of New York, 1 AD3d 675, 677 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 704 [2004]).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as (1) declared L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, *1261 § 61 to be unconstitutional, and (2) awarded interest, and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Related

Matter of Schuyler v. Zucker
146 A.D.3d 1178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.3d 1260, 23 N.Y.S.3d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-county-of-delaware-v-zucker-nyappdiv-2016.