Opinion
# 2017-045-008 Claim No. 128282 Motion No. M-89215
04-13-2017
WOODMERE REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Tenzer and Lunin, LLP By: Joseph C. Kaplan, Esq. Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Robert E. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Defendant's motion to dismiss claim which should have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court. Underlying claim involves medicaid payments withheld by the State from current owner of health care facility due to prior owner's liability,
Case information
| UID: | 2017-045-008 |
| Claimant(s): | WOODMERE REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC. |
| Claimant short name: | WOODMERE |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 128282 |
| Motion number(s): | M-89215 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA |
| Claimant's attorney: | Tenzer and Lunin, LLP By: Joseph C. Kaplan, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General By: Robert E. Morelli, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 13, 2017 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant's Notice of Motion, Defendant's Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibits A-E, Claimant's Affirmation in Opposition with annexed Exhibit 1 and Defendant's Affirmation in Further Support with annexed Exhibit 1.
Defendant has brought this motion pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211 (a) (2), (7) and (8) and Court of Claims Act (CCA) §§ 8, 9, 10 and 11, seeking an order dismissing the claim. Claimant, Woodmere Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, Inc., has opposed this motion.
Claimant filed the underlying claim in this matter on July 28, 2016. Claimant states that it is the owner and operator of Woodmere Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, Inc., a 150-bed skilled nursing facility located in Woodmere, New York. The facility is a New York State Medicaid provider. Claimant purchased the facility on or about December 29, 1995 from its prior owners and operators. At some point in 2016, defendant informed claimant that it would begin recouping from Medicaid funds due claimant approximately $2,000,000 of liabilities owed by the former owners of the facility. On January 18, 2016 defendant recouped $58,672 from Medicaid funds due claimant. No further funds have been recouped.
Defendant argues that the claim must be dismissed since the notice of intention and the claim fail to comply with CCA § 11 (b). However, the Court finds, after reviewing both documents, that they do satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of CCA § 11 (b).
Defendant also asserts that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claim because claimant seeks review of the Department of Health's determination to recoup Medicaid funds which must be brought as an Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court.
Regardless of how a claim is characterized, one that requires, as a threshold matter, the review of an administrative agency's determination falls outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Claims (Pratow Corp. v State of New York, 48 NYS3d 622 [2d Dept 2017][internal quotations and citations omitted]; Davis v State of New York, 129 AD3d 1353 [3d Dept 2015]). Generally, an administrative agency's determination may be reviewed only in the context of a CPLR Article 78 proceeding commenced in Supreme Court, and not in an action brought in the Court of Claims (Hope for Youth, Inc. v State of New York, 125 AD3d 1211 [3d Dept 2015][internal quotations and citations omitted]; Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231 [1988]). Claimant's allegations in the claim would require this Court to review the Department of Health's administrative determinations. Moreover, it is well established that Medicaid providers can obtain incidental monetary damages in the context of a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the withholding of Medicaid reimbursement payments (Signature Health Ctr. LLC v State of New York, 92 AD3d 11, 17 [3d Dept 2011] lv denied, 19 NY3d 811 [2012]). As a result, the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is not invoked in this matter and the claim must be dismissed.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is granted and the claim is hereby dismissed.
April 13, 2017
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims