Dickinson v. Daines
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Green and Gorski, JJ.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent, and would affirm the judgment. The conclusion of the majority that the time limitation set forth in 18 NYCRR 358-6.4 (a) should not be considered mandatory stems from its belief that the regulation reflects only administrative intent, not legislative *1649intent. The Legislature, however, enacted Social Services Law § 364 “[t]o assure that the medical care and services rendered pursuant to this title are of the highest quality and are available to all who are in need.” In order to implement that policy, the statute authorizes the New York…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- City of New York v. NovelloAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- State Division of Human Rights v. RinasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973