IN THE MATTER OF BARBARA SABOL, &C., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. CESAR PERALES,
&C., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
82 N.Y.2d 685, 619 N.E.2d 405, 601 N.Y.S.2d 468 (1993).
July 8, 1993
1 No. 146 (1993 NY Int. 155)
Decided July 8, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Gail Rubin, for Appellants.
Robert A. Forte, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs,
the matter remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, with directions
to remand to the New York State Department of Social Services for
further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and the
certified question answered in the negative.
Following a Utilization Review conducted in 1984 and 1985 pursuant to
Social Services Law § 398-b, petitioner, the New York City Human
Resources Administration, was sanctioned by respondent, the State
Department of Social Services (SDSS), for failure to meet regulatory
mandates in its provision of foster care services. The principal issue
on appeal is whether the State acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
sanctioning the City for failure to comply with documentation
requirements. The City contends that only noncompliance with standards
governing the provision of services can properly be the basis for
State sanctions under Social Services Law § 398-b and the regulations
promulgated thereunder (see, 18 NYCRR part 430).
The regulations relevant here should be construed in accordance with a
1982 directive sent by respondent to petitioner and others involved in
foster care. In the directive, SDSS interprets the regulations as
allowing sanctions for documentation violations only when the
documentation relates to (1) provision of mandated preventive
services, (2) necessity of placement (except those parts requiring
attempts to provide alternative living arrangements or actual
provision of mandated preventive services), and (3) appropriateness of
placement. These three categories constitute the headings and subject
matter of 18 NYCRR 430.9, 430.10, and 430.11, respectively. Thus, for
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Gail Rubin, for Appellants.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the matter remitted to
Following a Utilization Review conducted in 1984 and 1985 pursuant to Social Services Law §
The principal issue on appeal is whether the State acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
The City contends that only noncompliance with standards governing the provision of services
In the directive, SDSS interprets the regulations as allowing sanctions for documentation
Thus, for violations arising under those sections of the regulations, the City was properly
The directive establishes a different regulatory scheme for documentation relating to
|
