Ulster Home Care, Inc. v. Vacco
Cases that cite this one
29 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Makarius v. Port Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Matter of New York State Off. of Victim Servs. v. Blue (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Jacque-Crews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Garcia v. 122-130 E. 23rd St. LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Hann v. S&J Morrell, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Leveron v. Prana Growth Fund I, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Pizarro (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Leo v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Leo v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Krejbich v. Schimenti Construction Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Grant v. Steve Mark, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Grant v. Steve Mark, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Fabrizi v. 1095 Avenue of the Americas, L.L.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Fabrizi v. 1095 Avenue of the Americas, L.L.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Auriemma v. Biltmore Theatre, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Della Porta v. East 51st Street Development Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Atiencia v. MBBCO II, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Lombardo v. Park Tower Management Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Cantineri v. Carrere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Torkel v. NYU Hospitals Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Szpakowski v. Shelby Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Quattrocchi v. F.J. Sciame Construction Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Harden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Trippi v. Main-Huron, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Delarosa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and appellant’s motion to vacate the preliminary injunction granted.
Subsequent to our decision and remittal in Ulster Home Care v Vacco (96 NY2d 505 [2001]) (Ulster I), the Attorney General moved pursuant to CPLR 6314 to vacate a June 1998 preliminary injunction enjoining him from criminally prosecuting respondent based on alleged violations of the Medicaid “public charge” provisions (18 NYCRR 505.14 [h] [7] [ii] [a] [1] [i]). Supreme Court vacated the injunction reasoning that, although this Court did not address the preliminary injunction, our decision negated the basis on which it was granted and thus provided grounds for vacatur. The Appellate Division reversed (296 AD2d 671 [2002]). The Court concluded that the preliminary injunction was grounded solely on the potential for irreparable harm from criminal prosecution, and because our holding in Ulster I did not reach that issue it did not question the preliminary injunction.
Appellant claims that the Appellate Division’s refusal to vacate the preliminary injunction on remittitur contravenes a
In granting its June 1998 injunction, Supreme Court stated that it is proper to do so when “there is a danger of irreversible injury as a result of prosecution based on an invalid statute or administrative rule or order” (Ulster Home Care v Vacco, Sup Ct, Ulster County, June 2, 1998, Torraca, J. [emphasis added]). Thus, the irreparable injury identified by the court was the sort that arises from prosecution based upon an invalid law, rule or order. This qualifier, we conclude, illustrates the trial court’s consideration of respondent’s likelihood of success on the merits and its concern over continued criminal prosecution of respondent based on a constitutionally invalid regulation. As Supreme Court correctly concluded on remittitur, although we did not explicitly address the issue, our decision upholding 18 NYCRR 505.14 (h) (7) (ii) (a) (1) (i) as facially valid negated the basis for granting the preliminary injunction.
In sum, the order of the Appellate Division reinstating the preliminary injunction was error as there no longer existed a basis for it.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Read and Altman
Order reversed, etc.
Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.