Holliswood Care Ctr. v. Whalen, 448 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Holliswood Care Ctr. v. Whalen, 448 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tornheim v. Fiala (nyappdiv, 2016-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tornheim v. Fiala
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Although the plaintiff submitted additional correspondence to the defendant requesting reconsideration, and the defendant issued a subsequent letter further explaining its position, these circumstances did not undermine the finality of the October 31, 2013 determination, or serve to extend or revive the limitations period (see Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 974, 976 [1983]; Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1003 [1983]; Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216, 220 [1982]; Matter of Orange County Economic Dev.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahavas Chaverim Gemilas Chesed, Inc. v. Town of Mamakating
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of respondents regarding the 2009-2010 assessment, rather than dismissing the complaint (see Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1004 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ahavas Chaverim Gemilas Chesed, Inc. v. Town of Mamakating
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
However, Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of respondents regarding the 2009-2010 assessment, rather than dismissing the complaint (see Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1004 [1983]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nabi v. Sells
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
It was error to dismiss the first cause of action merely because plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration he seeks (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]); the proper course is to declare in favor of defendants (see Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1004 [1983]; Mongelli v Sharp, 140 AD2d 273 [1988]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New York Foundling Hospital, Inc. v. Novello
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the statute of limitations for claims arising under CPLR article 78 is four months (see CPLR 217 [1]) and petitioner’s requests for reconsideration in 2003 and 2004 could not extend the limitations period (see Holliswood Care Ctr. v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1003 [1983]; Matter of Properties of N.Y., Inc. v Planning Bd. of Town of Stuyvesant, 35 AD3d 941, 943 [2006]), those claims are time-barred.
discussed Cited "see" Rockaway Care Center v. Axelrod
N.Y. App. Div. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the decisive issue is whether respondents’ determination to disallow the "builder’s profit” in the calculation of petitioner’s 1982 reimbursement rate was arbitrary and capricious (CPLR 7803 [3]; see, Holliswood Care Center v Whalen, 58 NY2d 1001, 1004 ).
cited Cited "see" In Re Greenwald
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holliswood Care Center v. Whalen, 86 A.D.2d 904 , 448 N.Y.S.2d 265 (3d Dept. 1982), modified, 58 N.Y.2d 1001 , 461 N.Y.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Holliswood Care Center
v.
Robert P. Whalen, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 22, 1983.
448 N.E.2d 794
1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2948
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Irwin R. Karassik for appellant., Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Alan W. Rubenstein and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by declaring the establishment of plaintiff’s 1977 Medicaid reimbursement rate to be valid and, as so modified, affirmed.

As to the 1975 and 1976 reimbursement rates, plaintiff’s action, which was commenced on June 22, 1977, was properly held to be time barred because more than four months from June 25,1976, the date on which the administrative appeal for these years must be deemed to have been determined, had elapsed (Solnick v Whalen, 49 NY2d 224). The post-June 25, 1976 correspondence did not extend the statutory period since it amounted to no more than a request for reconsideration and therefore could not operate to toll the limitations period (Matter of De Milio v Borghard, 55 NY2d 216, 220).

The challenge to the 1977 reimbursement rate, however, is timely. That year’s “rate calculation sheet” was transmitted to the plaintiff by the commissioner on January 24, 1977 and the administrative appeal therefrom was initiated by plaintiff’s protest on February 9, 1977. The com[*1004] missioner having failed to act on this protest by the time the suit was commenced on June 22, 1977, the claim for this year was not barred.

Nor, as to the 1977 year, is the doctrine of collateral estoppel applicable. The annual reimbursement rate was subject, among other things, to such computational formulae and regulations as might be established for each year. It follows that whether the Statute of Limitations has run against a challenge to the reimbursement rate for a particular year is an issue not precluded by a determination governing a prior one, since, strictly speaking, the underlying issues will not necessarily be the same (People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v Haring, 286 App Div 676, 681 [Halpern, J.]).

On the merits, however, the commissioner’s determination that the plaintiff’s lease did not control the allowance for real property cost in computing the 1977 rate was not arbitrary or capricious (Matter of Sigety v Ingraham, 29 NY2d 110, 114). Because the plaintiff’s three principals each had a 3% ownership interest in the realty leased to the facility, it came within the regulation applicable to a “related organization” as to which the commissioner was free to choose between the “cost to the related organization or the market price” (10 NYCRR 86-2.26). We observe that in this instance the regulation which was in effect at the time that the lease was entered into had been repealed before the plaintiff began its operations. In any event, the prior regulation would not be controlling (Matter of White Plains Nursing Home v Whalen, 53 AD2d 926, 927, affd 42 NY2d 838, cert den 434 US 1066).

Finally, we note that, since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Appellate Division should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the commissioner rather than dismissal of the complaint (Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Simons concur; Judge Meyer taking no part.

[*1005] Order modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to respondents.