Opinion
May 7, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
The IAS Court properly determined that the QHCCAB and petitioners Lancman and Orr lacked capacity and standing to bring suit pursuant to McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws of N Y § 7384 (11) (New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 4 [11] [L 1969, ch 1016, § 1, as amended]). The right of a government agency to bring suit, if it exists at all, must be derived from express enabling legislative authority or some other concrete statutory predicate, either explicitly or by necessary implication ( Community Bd. 7 v. Schaffer, 84 N.Y.2d 148, 155-156). The HHC Act, the statute mandating establishment of advisory boards, such as the QHCCAB, as an advisory body for each hospital, does not expressly, or by necessary implication, confer upon QHCCAB the authority to commence an action or proceeding to judicially enforce its view of the extent to which it should be consulted or its advice sought in the event of a dispute ( see, City of New York v. State of New York, 86 N.Y.2d 286, 293; Matter of Darlington v. City of Ithaca, 202 A.D.2d 831, 832-833).
The IAS Court also properly determined that petitioner Lancman, who appears solely as Chairperson of QHCCAB, lacks capacity and standing to bring suit since his capacity to sue is no greater than that of QHCCAB ( Matter of Adirondack Park Local Govt. Review Bd. v. Adirondack Park Agency, 89 A.D.2d 642).
Similarly, petitioner Orr, who seeks to bring suit in her capacity as a QHCCAB member and in her individual capacity as a consumer of Queens Hospital Center medical services, lacks standing to bring suit since the consultative and informational relief on the issue of the privatization of the Queens Hospital Center sought by petitioner Orr is identical to the relief sought by QHCCAB ( see, Cooper v. Wertime, 164 A.D.2d 221, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 854; Matter of Association of Bds. of Visitors v. Prevost, 98 A.D.2d 260, 263), and since the damages which petitioner Orr is alleged to face as a patient in the out-patient clinics of the Queens Hospital Center and as an ultimate consumer of medical services, equating lesser consultation between HHC and QHCCAB with reduced and inferior medical services, are too remote and speculative to form any predicate to confer individual standing to sue ( see, Society of Plastic Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 772-774; Matter of Professional Ins. Agents v. New York State Ins. Dept., 197 A.D.2d 258, 261).
Even assuming that some level of consultation between HHC and QHCCAB is mandated and judicially enforceable, however, the record reveals that the IAS Court properly concluded that injunctive relief was not warranted since the actions taken by respondents were preliminary in nature and did not set an irrevocable course towards the privatization of Queens Hospital Center, and that, in that light, HHC had, to date, undertaken reasonable, appropriate efforts to inform QHCCAB of the status of the privatization planning efforts ( cf., Gaynor v. Rockefeller, 15 N.Y.2d 120, 131; see, Matter of Council of Mun. Hosp. Community Bds. v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 101 Misc.2d 200).
We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.