Opinion
May 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Beverly Cohen, J.].
Neither expert testimony nor an actual accounting of all claims paid was offered by petitioner to rebut the presumption of validity that adheres to the statistical sampling method utilized by respondent in determining the amount of the overpayments ( 18 NYCRR 519.18 [g]). Petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of accuracy that adheres to respondent's computerized record of services ordered by petitioner ( 18 NYCRR 519.18 [f]), nor will respondent's rejection of petitioner's claim that files were lost or destroyed as unworthy of belief be second-guessed (Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444). The five-year suspension of petitioner from the program is consistent with the guidelines to be considered in determining the sanction ( 18 NYCRR 515.4), and is not so disproportionate to the nature of the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233). Petitioner's claim of bias on the part of the Hearing Officer is unsubstantiated (People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 180 A.D.2d 914, 916). We have considered petitioner's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.