| Matter of County of Niagara v Daines |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00556 [91 AD3d 1288] |
| Jnury 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of County of Niagara, Respondent, v RichardF. Daines, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, et al.,Appellants. |
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, NiagaraCounty (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered March 3, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78. The judgment, inter alia, granted the petition in part. It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed withoutcosts. Memorandum: Petitioner, a county that is also a social services district for the purposesof this appeal (see Matter of County of St. Lawrence v Daines, 81 AD3d 212, 217 [2011], lvdenied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]), commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul thedenial of its claim for reimbursement for certain Medicaid expenditures known as overburdenexpenditures (see generally Matter of Krauskopf v Perales, 139 AD2d 147 [1988], affd 74 NY2d730 [1989]). Respondents appeal, as limited by their brief, from the judgment insofar as itgranted that part of the petition seeking reimbursement for certain pre-2006 overburdenexpenditures. On appeal, respondents contend that Supreme Court erred in granting the petitionin part because a 2010 amendment (L 2010, ch 109, part B, 24) to the law known as theMedicaid Cap Statute (L 2005, ch 58, part C, 1, as amended by L 2006, ch 57, part A, 60)extinguished petitioner's right to reimbursement for overburden expenditures made prior to July2006. We reject that contention. Initially, we note that we have consistently ruled that respondents' duty to reimbursesocial services districts for overburden expenditures incurred prior to January 1, 2006 was notextinguished by the original Medicaid Cap Statute (see Matter of County of Erie v Daines, 83AD3d 1506 [2011]; Matter of County of Herkimer v Daines, 83 AD3d 1510 [2011]; Matter ofCounty of Niagara v Daines, 79 AD3d 1702 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 703 [2011]; see alsoCounty of St. Lawrence, 81 AD3d 212). Thus, that duty continues unless it was extinguished bythe 2010 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute. The plain language of the 2010 amendmentdoes not address overburden expenditures or respondents' duty to pay them but, rather, it statesthat, "[s]ubject to the provisions of subdivision four of section six of this part, the state/localsocial services district relative percentages of the non-federal share of medical assistanceexpenditures incurred prior to January 1, 2006 shall not be subject to adjustment on and after July1, 2006" (L 2010, ch 109, part B, 24). " 'Where words of a statute are free from ambiguity andexpress plainly, clearly and distinctly the legislative intent, resort may not be had to other meansof interpretation' . . . , and the intent of the Legislature must be discerned from the language ofthe statute . . . without resort to extrinsic material such as legislative history or memoranda"(Matter of Rochester Community Sav. Bank v Board of Assessors of City of Rochester, 248AD2d 949, 950 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 811 [1998]; see Matter of Aquilone v Board of Educ.of City School Dist. of City of N.Y., 86 NY2d 198, 204 [1995]). Consequently, inasmuch as theplain language of the 2010 amendment does not mention overburden expenditures orrespondents' preexisting duty to reimburse petitioner for such expenses incurred prior to 2006,that duty is not extinguished by the amendment. In addition, the 2010 amendment states that "this act shall not be construed to alter,change, affect, impair or defeat any rights, obligations, duties or interests accrued, incurred orconferred prior to the effective date of this act" (L 2010, ch 109, part B, 40 [c]). Thus, for thatreason as well, respondents' contention that the 2010 amendment defeats their preexisting duty toreimburse petitioner for the overburden expenditures is without merit. In any event, an examination of the legislative history of the 2010 amendment fails tosupport respondents' contentions. There is nothing in the legislative history indicating that theLegislature acted in response to the prior judicial decisions concerning the Medicaid Cap Statute(cf. Brothers v Florence, 95 NY2d 290, 299-300 [2000]). The New York State Senate Sponsor'smemorandum states, however, that the law "would clarify the State's authority to withholdpayments to local social services districts for past due youth facility reimbursement, andauthorize the transfer of up to $27 million from the Youth Facility Per Diem account to theGeneral Fund." (Governor's Bill Jacket, L 2010, ch 109, at 8.) "The maxim expressio unius estexclusio alterius is applied in the construction of the statutes, so that where a law expresslydescribes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must bedrawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded" (McKinney'sCons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes 240; see Golden v Koch, 49 NY2d 690, 694 [1980]).Because the Legislature included a provision permitting respondents to withhold payments forcertain reimbursements while at the same time failed to include a provision indicating that theLegislature intended to permit respondents to withhold or deny claims for reimbursement ofoverburden expenditures, we conclude that "an irrefutable inference must be drawn that" thelegislators intentionally omitted such a provision (Statutes 240). We reject respondents' reliance upon an affidavit prepared after the enactment of the 2010amendment by the New York State Department of Health's former Director of the Bureau ofHealth Insurance Programs, Division of Legal Affairs, which purports to set forth the legislativehistory of the Medicaid Cap Statute and the 2010 amendment. The affidavit, "written [almost] ayear after passage of the [2010] amendment and constituting, therefore, no part of the legislativeprocess, is not entitled to consideration as legislative history" (Matter of Lorie C., 49 NY2d 161,169 [1980]). Based on our determination, we see no need to address petitioner's further contentions.Present Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Gorski, JJ.