Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Michael R. GRAY, M.D., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian J. WING, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Temporary and Disability Services, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Michael GRAY, M.D., Petitioner, v. Brian J. WING, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Temporary and Disability Services, et al., Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered June 13, 1997, which dismissed an Article 78 petition to enjoin administrative proceedings against petitioner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Determination of respondent Department of Health dated April 1, 1998, which, after an administrative hearing, affirmed respondent's prior determination to exclude petitioner from participation in the Medicaid program for two years, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William Wetzel, J.], entered June 24, 1998) dismissed, without costs.
Petitioner did not divest the agency of jurisdiction by choosing to resign from the Medicaid panel (see, Matter of Senise v. Corcoran, 146 Misc.2d 598, 600, 552 N.Y.S.2d 483). The provision in 18 NYCRR § 519.22(b) that a “decision will be issued ․ in any event within 120 days of the conclusion of the hearing or the closing of the record” is directory, rather than mandatory (cf., Matter of Gonkjur Assocs. v. Abrams, 57 N.Y.2d 853, 856, 455 N.Y.S.2d 761, 442 N.E.2d 58), such that respondent's failure to issue its decision within the specified time frame did not, without more, deprive it of jurisdiction (see, Matter of Cosmos Forms, Ltd. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 150 A.D.2d 442, 443, 541 N.Y.S.2d 50), and petitioner, having made no showing of prejudice by reason of the delay, is not entitled to relief (see, Tiffany & Co. v. Smith, 224 A.D.2d 332, 638 N.Y.S.2d 454, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 806, 646 N.Y.S.2d 985, 670 N.E.2d 226). The administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Sarfo v. Glass, 243 A.D.2d 824, 825, 663 N.Y.S.2d 894) and the penalty is not inappropriate (see, e.g., Mirilashvili v. Dowling, 213 A.D.2d 175, 176, 623 N.Y.S.2d 239).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 05, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)