§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Woodside Manor Nursing Home, et al., Appellants,v.Nirav R. Shah, M.D.,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

25 Cited authorities

  1. DaimlerChrysler v. Spitzer

    7 N.Y.3d 653 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 227 times
    In Spitzer, James Warner bought a new truck manufactured by General Motors Corporation in March 2003. Shortly after acquiring the truck, Warner discovered a transmission problem and attempted to have the problem fixed on five occasions between April and November 2003.

  2. Association of Counties v. Axelrod

    78 N.Y.2d 158 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 195 times

    Argued April 30, 1991 Decided June 27, 1991 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Paul Cheeseman, J. Peter G. Bergmann, Kathy Hirata Chin and William J. Natbony for appellant. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Clifford A. Royael, O. Peter Sherwood and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents. Cornelius D. Murray and David M. Cherubin for New York State Health Facilities Association, Inc., amicus curiae. Susan C. Waltman for the Greater New York

  3. Sanders v. Winship

    57 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 191 times
    Holding that all parts of the statute should be harmonized and given its full effect and meaning if possible

  4. James Square Assocs. LP v. Mullen

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3935 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 41 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In James Sq., the Court concluded that a retroactive period of 16 months “should be considered excessive and weighs against the State” (21 N.Y.3d at 249, 970 N.Y.S.2d 888, 993 N.E.2d 374).

  5. Blossom View Home v. Novello

    4 N.Y.3d 581 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 38 times
    Discussing the prospective system used for reimbursement rates

  6. Alliance of American Insurers v. Chu

    77 N.Y.2d 573 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that insurance companies had a due process interest in the statutorily created Property and Liability Insurance Security Fund, funded through insurer contributions and used to satisfy claims in the event of an insurer's insolvency

  7. In re County of St. Lawrence

    81 A.D.3d 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 20 times
    Stating that "[u]nder New York law, retroactive operation is not favored by courts and statutes will not be given such construction unless the language expressly or by necessary implication requires it," and that it is "a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that statutes affecting substantive rights and liabilities are presumed to have only prospective effect."

  8. Cnty. of Niagara v. Daines

    91 A.D.3d 1288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    2012-01-31 In the Matter of COUNTY OF NIAGARA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Richard F. DAINES, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Health, Respondents–Appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Christopher E. Buckey of Counsel), and Nancy Rose Stormer, P.C., Utica, for Petitioner–Respondent. PRESENT: SCUDDER Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General

  9. Murphy v. Board of Education

    104 A.D.2d 796 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)   Cited 39 times

    October 1, 1984 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.). Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and proceeding dismissed on the merits. On June 30, 1975, petitioner was excessed from her teaching position with the North Bellmore Union Free School District. At that time, subdivision 3 of section 2510 Educ. of the Education Law provided that persons such as petitioner were to be placed on a preferred recall list for a period of four years, commencing from the date they were

  10. Matter of Nypirg v. Dinkins

    83 N.Y.2d 377 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 21 times

    Argued February 17, 1994 Decided March 22, 1994 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J. Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy and Kristin M. Helmers of counsel), for appellants. Sam Sue, New York City, and John A. Gresham for New York Public Interest Research Group and others, respondents. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, New York City (David S. Miller and Thomas J. Moloney of

  11. Section 1396a - State plans for medical assistance

    42 U.S.C. § 1396a   Cited 3,537 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Concluding paragraph, exception

  12. Section 447.253 - Other requirements

    42 C.F.R. § 447.253   Cited 125 times
    Requiring such findings and assurances

  13. Section 86-2.10 - Computation of basic rate

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.10   Cited 82 times
    Explaining that a new operator's failure to file timely cost reports results in two-percent reimbursement rate penalty under section 86-2.2(c)

  14. Section 86-2.14 - Revisions in certified rates

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.14   Cited 54 times
    Prescribing administrative hearing as a second level appeal if requested within thirty days after denial of first appeal

  15. Section 86-2.13 - Adjustments to provisional rates based on errors

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.13   Cited 48 times

    (a) Errors resulting from submission of fiscal and statistical information by a residential health care facility may be corrected if brought to the attention of the State Commissioner of Health within 120 days of receipt of the commissioner's initial rate computation sheet. Errors on the part of the State Department of Health resulting from the rate computation process may be corrected if brought to the attention of the commissioner within 120 days of receipt of the commissioner's initial rate computation