14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Best Payphones v. Dept. of Info. Tech.

    5 N.Y.3d 30 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 197 times

    90. Argued April 27, 2005. Decided June 9, 2005. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered November 24, 2003. The Appellate Division affirmed so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David B. Vaughan, J.), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent that denied petitioner a public payphone franchise, as

  2. Matter of Essex County v. Zagata

    91 N.Y.2d 447 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that an agency decision is final when the decision "may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party"
  3. Association of Counties v. Axelrod

    78 N.Y.2d 158 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 179 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

  4. In re Eadie v. Town Bd. of N. Greenbush

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5236 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 75 times
    Upholding a 100-foot buffer zone used to avoid triggering a supermajority vote
  5. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 60 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  6. In Matter of Elcor Health Svcs. Inc. v. Novello

    100 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 58 times
    In Elcor, the Court of Appeals determined that the Public Health Law supported the actual improvement standard, which would encourage "efficiently and economically operated facilities" (Public Health Law § 2807) by allowing reimbursement only for those patients who were properly provided restorative therapy, and, as a result, showed actual improvement.
  7. Stewart v. Bd. of Elections

    14 N.Y.3d 139 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Finding that judicial estoppel was inapplicable where it was not clear on the record whether the trial court adopted the party's initial position
  8. New Surfside Nursing Home, LLC v. Daines

    103 A.D.3d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    2013-02-6 In the Matter of NEW SURFSIDE NURSING HOME, LLC, et al., appellants, v. Richard F. DAINES, etc., et al., respondents. Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, Knauer & McNally, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (David N. Yaffe, Richard Hamburger, and William P. Caffrey, Jr., of counsel), for appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Sudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for respondents. THOMAS A. DICKERSON Hamburger, Maxson, Yaffe, Knauer & McNally, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (David

  9. New Surfside Nursing Home, LLC v. Daines

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 76261 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

    2010-10100 Index No. 10185/10 M157590 06-07-2013 In the Matter of New Surfside Nursing Home, LLC, et al., appellants, v. Richard F. Daines, etc., et al., respondents. THOMAS A. DICKERSON , J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS LEONARD B. AUSTIN ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION Motion by the appellants for leave to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 15, 2010, which was determined by decision and order of this Court dated February 6, 2013, or, in

  10. Waterman v. State of New York

    19 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)   Cited 45 times
    In Waterman v. State of New York (19 A.D.2d 264) the claimant sought recovery for damages allegedly sustained because of the necessity of a retrial when the stenographer lost the minutes of the first trial. The damages sought were loss of interest and expenses of the second trial.
  11. Section 86-2.10 - Computation of basic rate

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.10   Cited 74 times
    Stating that a new operator of a nursing home must file a cost report to allow the DOH to assign it a reimbursement rate and the new operator must use the previous operator's reimbursement rate until the DOH assigns the new operator its own reimbursement rate
  12. Section 86-2.14 - Revisions in certified rates

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.14   Cited 52 times
    Prescribing administrative hearing as a second level appeal if requested within thirty days after denial of first appeal
  13. Section 86-2.30 - Residential health care facilities patient assessment for certified rates

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.30   Cited 16 times
    Relating to PRIs
  14. Section 86-2.11 - Adjustments to direct component of the rate

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 § 86-2.11   Cited 7 times

    (a) Payments for 1986 and subsequent rate years for the direct component of the rate as defined in section 86-2.10(c) of this Subpart shall be adjusted periodically as described in this section to reflect changes in the case mix of facilities. (b) Facilities shall report to the department changes in patient case mix as follows: (1) Full reassessments. Facilities shall, on a schedule to be established by the department, assess all their patients semiannually and submit patient review instruments pursuant