 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
REGULATION PUBLICATION CONVICTION PUBLIC CHARGE CARE SERVICES APPELLATE DIVISION MEDICAID GRAND LARCENY FALSE INSTRUMENT FILING PERSONAL CARE SERVICES COURT OFFERING HOME CARE PROVISION VAGUE JUDGE COMPLIANT EVIDENCE ULSTER HOME CARE FACTS DEFRAUDING CERTIFYING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE VIOLATION HEALTH CARE PAYMENTS PROVIDERS ACCORDANCE |
3 No. 60
The People &c.,
Appellant-Respondent,
v.
Daniel Rubin,
Respondent-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 58
May 10, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Arthur G. Weinstein, for appellant-respondent.
Robert A. Culp, for respondent-appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
SMITH, J.:
The People appeal from an order of the Appellate Division that
reversed defendant's conviction for grand larceny in the second degree
(Penal Law § 155.40) and six counts of offering a false instrument
for filing in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.35). Defendant
cross-appeals from the same order to the extent that it affirmed his
conviction of two counts of offering a false instrument for filing.
Defendant, the principal owner and operator of Allstate Home Care,
Inc., a Dutchess County home care services agency, was charged with
defrauding the State of New York of approximately $620,000 by billing
Medicaid for sums between $13.35 and $15.20 per hour for personal care
services when he knew a Department of Social Services regulation
limited him to the same hourly rate charged to the general public (the
"public charge" provision). Defendant was convicted of second degree
grand larceny for stealing in excess of $50,000 (count one). He was
also convicted of eight counts of offering a false statement for
filing: six counts (two through seven) were for filing specific bills
which falsely stated that they were consistent with applicable
regulations, one (count eight) was for certifying falsely that his
cost to the general public during 1994 was $15.25, and one (count
nine) was for certifying in a 1995 cost report that the salaries of
two employees of another business he owned were attributable to health
care services.
The primary issue before us is whether the public charge provision of
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
