Opinion
October 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision converting the proceeding into an action for injunctive relief (see, CPLR 103 [c]), with the notice of petition deemed a summons and the petition deemed a complaint; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The instant litigation arises out of Central General Hospital's rejection of the application by petitioner, an otolaryngologist, for reappointment to the medical staff at Central General. The Credentials Committee recommended rejecting the petitioner's application upon a finding that he had made misstatements of fact on his application with respect to whether he had ever been denied professional privileges from another institution. Pursuant to Central General's By-laws, a hearing was held before an Ad Hoc Committee, which also recommended rejection. The Executive Committee adopted the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee, which was affirmed on appeal before the Governing Board. The petitioner thereafter sought review by the Public Health Council, which subsequently dismissed the petitioner's complaint. The instant proceeding ensued.
We note, initially, that it was improper for the petitioner to commence a proceeding either under CPLR article 78 or Public Health Law § 2801-c, since the only avenue for judicial review of a determination of the Public Health Council is an action for injunctive relief (see, Matter of Cohoes Mem. Hosp. v. Department of Health, 48 N.Y.2d 583). Therefore, we have converted the purported proceeding into an action for injunctive relief (see, CPLR 103 [c]).
We find that the record supports the Supreme Court's adoption of the Public Health Council's conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately omitted relevant information from his application and that this conduct provided a good faith basis for Central General's decision not to reappoint the petitioner to the staff (see, Public Health Law § 2801-b; see generally, Fried v Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d 376, 378; Harris v. Eisenberg, 199 A.D.2d 305, 307; Jackaway v. Northern Dutchess Hosp., 139 A.D.2d 496). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the respondents for summary judgment. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.