You are here: / / Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency...
,

Ambiguity About the Timing of a Final Decision from an Administrative Agency Precluded Dismissal Based Upon the Statute of Limitations Defense

In the course of a decision finding the Commissioner of Health had properly determined Medicaid reimbursement rates for residential health care facilities, the Third Department determined ambiguity about when a final decision had been made precluded dismissal based on the statute of limitations defense:

“[W]hen an administrative body itself creates ambiguity and uncertainty” concerning the finality of a determination, however, “affected [parties] should not have to risk dismissal for prematurity or untimeliness by necessarily guessing when a final and binding determination has or has not been made. Under these circumstances, ‘the courts should resolve any ambiguity created by the public body against it in order to reach a determination on the merits and not deny a party his [or her] day in court'”… . Matter of Adirondack Med Center-Uihlein v Daines, 2014 NY Slip Op 05386, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE RECORD SUPPORTED COUNTY COURT’S CONCLUSION THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS A ‘PRETEXT’ FOR A SEARCH FOR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Assets Allegedly Wrongly Appropriated by Fiduciary Deemed “Asset-Transfers” for Purpose of Qualifying for Medicaid 
PLAINTIFF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK WITH A BALL DURING A PRACTICE DRILL WHERE MULTIPLE BALLS WERE IN PLAY; TWO DISSENTING MEMORANDA (THIRD DEPT).
ATTORNEY, WHO WAS ACTING AS CO-COUNSEL WITH THE DISQUALIFIED LAWFIRM, WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE LAWFIRM TO WARRANT DISQUALIFICATION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS.
Valid State Purpose (Conserving Drinking Water) Did Not Relieve State of Liability Re: Breach of an Agreement to Provide a Certain Amount of Water to a Hydroelectric Power Provider
HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY HAD DUTY TO DEFEND IN AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SHOOTING BY THE INSURED, SHOOTING MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL (RECKLESS).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL BUT COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON IT; MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS (THIRD DEPT).
Questioning at Home Did Not Trigger Need for Miranda Warnings

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police... No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding...