Opinion
November 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).
Respondent's actions in promulgating the challenged regulations were within his jurisdiction and have a rational basis (see, Matter of Gramercy N. Assocs. v Biderman, 169 A.D.2d 345, 348-349, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 863).
The regulations were promulgated only after respondent obtained extensive input from the medical and chiropractic communities and compared the process of thermography with several other imaging techniques, and considered the existing fee schedule for the imaging process found most comparable.
Nor were petitioners denied due process, which requires only notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard (see, Chrisley v Morin, 126 A.D.2d 977, 978, mot to dismiss appeal granted 69 N.Y.2d 1037). Petitioners had notice by publication, and admittedly did not avail themselves of a 45-day comment period.
Petitioners' remaining arguments are without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.