Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Utica v. Daines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 10, 2012Published

1DissentStein, J.

Because in our view respondent New York State Emergency Medical Services Council (hereinafter SEMSCO) considered the relevant circumstances and accorded petitioner’s application the benefit of the statutory presumption, we respectfully dissent. We concur with Supreme Court’s conclusions that SEMSCO11 recognized the presumption to which petitioner was entitled in determining its application for a certificate of public need and that such presumption was effectively rebutted by the information provided by Utica Ambulance Service, Inc., doing business as Kunkel Ambulance Service (hereinafter…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Senior Care Services, Inc. v. New York State Department of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  2. Tri-State Ambulance Service, Inc. v. State of New York Department of HealthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API