You are here: / / Exceptions to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” Requirement...
,

Exceptions to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” Requirement Not Applicable—“Futility” and “Irreparable Harm” Not Demonstrated

The Third Department determined that petitioner (a nursing home) could not, via an Article 78 proceeding, involve the courts to contest the Department of Health’s (DOH’s) calculation of Medicaid reimbursement rates because petitioner did not first exhaust every available administrative remedy.  The exceptions to the exhaustion requirement, futility and irreparable harm, did not apply:

It is well settled that an administrative agency’s determination must be challenged through every available administrative remedy before it can be challenged in the courts … . The narrow exceptions to this requirement include, as relevant here, where an administrative challenge would be futile or the petitioner can demonstrate irreparable harm … . Neither exception has been demonstrated. Matter of Schenectady Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr LLC, v Shah, 2015 NY Slip Op 00425, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

 

You might also like
Question of Fact Existed About Whether Lost or Destroyed Will Had Been Revoked.
Failure to Call One of the Parties Who Signed a Drug-Analysis Report Did Not Violate the Confrontation Clause/No Evidence the Party Conducted Any Testing or Analysis
Although Title Had Not Yet Formally Passed to the Driver/Owner, the Vehicle Was Covered as a “Newly Acquired” Vehicle Under the Terms of the Policy
TAKING A WOMAN’S DOG FOR A WALK WAS A VIOLATION OF PROBATION, THE WOMAN HAD A MISDEMEANOR DWI CONVICTION, THEREFORE THE PROBATIONER ASSOCIATED WITH A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.
THE “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY RETAINING THE 17-YEAR-OLD’S BURGLARY PROSECUTION IN COUNTY COURT WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO FAMILY COURT; THE CRITERIA FOR RETENTION IN COUNTY COURT ARE EXPLAINED IN DEPTH (THIRD DEPT).
Nature of a “Turn-Key” or “Design-Build” Contract Explained—Three-Year Statute of Limitations for Malpractice Applied to Defendant Architects Who Were Engaged Solely to Design, Not Build, the Renovations
Reference to Statute Cured Any Omissions from the Description of the Elements of the Offense Charged in a Superior Court Information
Approval of an MRI Within Seven Years of Closure of Claimant’s Case Effectively Reopened the Case—Transfer to the Special Fund for Closed Cases Was Error

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Remainderman Was Entitled to the Tax and Insurance Payments Made on Behalf of... Failure to Strictly Comply with the Service Instructions in the Court’s...