Weiner v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiner v. Perales

160 A.D.2d 567

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

DecidedApril 24, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 567 (Weiner 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

Weiner v. Perales, 160 A.D.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered March 28, 1989, granting the petition to annul respondent’s determination which denied petitioner’s application for reenrollment as a Medicaid provider, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this court has held that a Medicaid provider does not have a constitutionally protected property right to continued participation in the program (Matter of Barata v Perales, 157 AD2d 623), the IAS Part correctly concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying petitioner’s application for reenrollment. The regulations applicable to petitioner’s appeal of [568]*568its termination as a Medicaid provider are those which were in effect prior to the enactment of 18 NYCRR 504.5 (e). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered March 28, 1989, granting the petition to annul respondent’s determination which denied petitioner’s application for reenrollment as a Medicaid provider, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although this court has held that a Medicaid provider does not have a constitutionally protected property right to continued participation in the program (Matter of Barata v Perales, 157 AD2d 623), the IAS Part correctly concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying petitioner’s application for reenrollment. The regulations applicable to petitioner’s appeal of [568]*568its termination as a Medicaid provider are those which were in effect prior to the enactment of 18 NYCRR 504.5 (e). Concur —Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiner-v-perales-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack