THE BRIGHTONIAN NURSING HOME v. DAINES, M.D., RICHARD F.
CA 11-01861
| N.Y. App. Div. | Mar 23, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs-petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Public Health Law § 2808(5)(c) in a hybrid CPLR article 78 and declaratory judgment action.
- The statute bars nursing homes from withdrawing equity or assets exceeding 3% of annual revenue for patient care without prior Commissioner approval.
- The Commissioner has 60 days to decide, reviewing factors including financial condition, distress indicators, delinquencies, and quality-of-care issues, plus a catchall for additional factors.
- The trial court declared § 2808(5)(c) unconstitutional, and the judgment was entered in plaintiffs’ favor.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the catchall provision an unconstitutional delegation and the statute as a whole violative of substantive due process.
- Subdivisions (5)(a) and (5)(b) are viewed as protecting residents, while (5)(c) is deemed irrational and arbitrary and thus invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2808(5)(c) constitutes unlawful legislative delegation. | plaintiffs assert catchall grants unfettered discretion. | Daines argues catchall operates within the statute’s overall framework. | Yes; unconstitutional delegation. |
| Whether the catchall is unconstitutionally vague. | plaintiffs contend no standards guide review. | Defendants contend catchall allows reasonable interpretation. | Yes; vague and lacking standards. |
| Whether ejusdem generis limits the catchall. | plaintiffs rely on general-to-general terms; rule inapplicable. | Defendants invoke ejusdem generis to constrain the catchall. | No; rule does not apply here. |
| Whether the statute violates substantive due process. | plaintiffs have a vested property interest and irrational regulation fails rational basis. | Defendants contend regulation serves legitimate governmental interest. | Yes; violates due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaValle v. Hayden, 98 N.Y.2d 155 (N.Y. 2002) (strong presumption of constitutionality; rational basis scrutiny for statutes)
- Matter of Moran Towing Corp. v Urbach, 99 N.Y.2d 443 (N.Y. 2003) (heavy burden to show wholesale constitutional impairment for facial challenges)
- Levine v. Whalen, 39 N.Y.2d 510 (N.Y. 1976) (legislative delegation must be bounded with standards)
- Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n. of State of N.Y., 71 N.Y.2d 313 (N.Y. 1988) (regulation must have reasonable relation to objective; not arbitrary)
- Fred F. French Inv. Co. v. City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 587 (N.Y. 1976) (due process requires reasonable means related to objective)
- Matter of Morrissey v. Apostol, 75 A.D.3d 993 (4th Dep’t 2010) (catchall vagueness and standards concerns acknowledged)