Opinion
Argued September 15, 2000
October 10, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the respondents' determinations, dated September 5, 1996, and May 27, 1997, respectively, concerning the petitioner's reimbursement rate, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated June 30, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Bergmann, Brian T. McGovern, and Matthew S. Fenster of counsel), for appellant.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Mark S. Gimpel and Marion R. Buchbinder of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
An administrative determination must be accepted by the courts "`if it has `warrant in the record' and a reasonable basis in law'" (Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438, quoting Board of Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. 11 1, 131). "`The judicial function is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusions approved by the administrative body'" (Matter of Howard v. Wyman, supra, at 438, quoting Rochester Tel. Corp. v. U.S., 307 U.S. 125, 146).
In reviewing rate-setting actions, which are quasi-legislative in nature, a court will intervene only "upon a compelling showing that the calculations from which [they] derived were unreasonable" (Matter of Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Department of Health, 48 N.Y.2d 967, 968; see, Matter of Society of N.Y. Hosp. v. Axelrod, 70 N.Y.2d 467, 473). "An agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to considerable deference by a reviewing court particularly where, as here, the interpretation also implicates the agency's highly technical knowledge and understanding of complex operational procedures and practices" (Ellis Center for Long Term Care v. DeBuono, 261 A.D.2d 791, 794; see, Matter of Home Care Assn. of N Y State v. Bane, 218 A.D.2d 106, 109).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondents' determination to use the average of the quarterly patient mix assessments to establish the first-year base rate for the new owner of a residential health care facility as a necessary predicate to the establishment of reimbursement rates was rational and therefore should not be disturbed.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.