Opinion
June 13, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The requirement of injury in fact in determining whether a petitioner has standing to bring a proceeding demands that the petitioning party "must have a legally cognizable interest that is or will be affected by the * * * determination" (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 69 N.Y.2d 406, 413; see, Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 N.Y.2d 428, 433). A showing of special damage or injury is not always necessary, however, because in some instances the party's particular relationship to the subject of the proceeding gives rise to a presumption of standing (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, at 413; see, Matter of Har Enters. v. Town of Brookhaven, 74 N.Y.2d 524, 527-528). Thus, "the immediate parties to an administrative proceeding are aggrieved persons who may seek judicial review" (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning Appeals, supra, at 413). Here, as an immediate party to the administrative proceeding, the petitioner is an aggrieved party who may seek judicial review, and thus, contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, it has standing to bring this proceeding.
Similarly, the court has jurisdiction to hear the proceeding in this matter. "The concept of finality requires an examination of the completeness of the administrative action and a pragmatic evaluation of whether the `decision-maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury'" (Church of St. Paul St. Andrew v. Barwick, 67 N.Y.2d 510, 519, cert denied 479 U.S. 985, quoting Williamson County Regional Planning Commn. v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 193). Here, the Department of Health's regulations provided no mechanism for administrative review of the particular claims raised by the petitioner, i.e. that the factual bases of certain findings in the Residential Health Care Facility Survey Profile were erroneous. We note that 10 NYCRR 413.3 provides an appeal process to challenge the "accuracy of the survey profile summary" but that such appeal "shall be limited to whether such summary accurately reflects the findings set forth in the statement of deficiencies" ( 10 NYCRR 413.3 [a]). The appeal procedure does not allow the facility to challenge the facts upon which the statement of deficiencies is based. Since, in the instant case the petitioner had exhausted his administrative remedies, the Department of Health's determination was final (see, Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 489, 490-491).
We have considered the argument of the Department of Health that to allow this proceeding will invite excessive litigation. Nothing in this decision prevents the Department of Health from instituting appropriate administrative review procedures to avoid this type of litigation. Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.