Opinion
July 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and on the facts, by deleting the provisions thereof which granted the petition to the extent of finding that (1) 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 is an additional or expanded program within the meaning of 10 NYCRR 86-4.16 (c) and remitted for an administrative hearing the issue of whether the costs alleged by the petitioner were actually incurred and necessary to its implementation of 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 and (2) remitted for an administrative hearing the issue of whether the additional lease expenses incurred by the petitioner are major outpatient capital expenditures within the meaning of Public Health Law § 2807 (2)(b); as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the appellants-respondents.
It is well-established that an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference and should be upheld unless it is without a rational basis (see, New York Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405; Matter of Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v. Axelrod, 127 A.D.2d 260). The Department of Health's interpretation of 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 that it is not an additional or expanded program within the meaning of 10 NYCRR 86-4.16 (c) is not irrational. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred by rejecting the Department of Health's interpretation of 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 and ordering a hearing on whether the costs alleged by the petitioner were actually incurred and necessary to its implementation of 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 (see, Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434). In light of this determination, the petitioner's contention on the cross-appeal that the Supreme Court erred in finding that the costs for medical records and for a second social worker are not attributable to the implementation of the 10 N.Y.CRR part 750 is necessarily without merit.
The construction given statutes by the administrative agency responsible for their administration and enforcement will be upheld if not irrational or unreasonable (see, Matter of Howard v. Wyman, supra, at 438). When, as here, the interpretation or application of a statute involves the special competence and expertise of an administrative agency, the courts regularly defer to the agency (see, Kurcsics v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 49 N.Y.2d 451). The Department of Health's interpretation of Public Health Law § 2807 (2) (b), i.e., that an increase in the petitioner's lease expenses is not a major outpatient capital expenditure, is not irrational. Thus, the Supreme Court erred by rejecting the Department of Health's interpretation of Public Health Law § 2807 (2)(b) and ordering a hearing on the issue of the petitioner's lease expenses.
The petitioner's remaining contention on the cross appeal is without merit (see, New York Dept. of Social Servs. v. Dublino, supra; Matter of Howard v. Wyman, supra; Matter of Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v. Axelrod, supra; Hurlbut v. Whalen, 58 A.D.2d 311). Thompson, J.P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.