97 N.Y.2d 505 (2002)
A regulatory vagueness challenge must be addressed to the specific facts of the case, and a regulation is not impermissibly vague as applied if the defendant understood the regulation and intended to violate it.
Summary
Rubin, the owner of a home care services agency, was convicted of grand larceny and offering a false instrument for filing for overcharging Medicaid. He argued that the Medicaid reimbursement regulation (the “public charge” provision) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Rubin understood the regulation and created schemes to violate it, the regulation was not impermissibly vague as applied to him. The Court reinstated Rubin’s convictions on counts that had been reversed by the Appellate Division, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to defraud.
Facts
Rubin owned Allstate Home Care, Inc., a home care services agency. He was charged with defrauding New York State by billing Medicaid at rates exceeding the rate charged to the general public, violating a Department of Social Services regulation (the “public charge” provision). Evidence showed Rubin created two price schedules: one accurate and another hidden, designed to defraud Medicaid. He also instructed staff to misrepresent the public rate for services to Medicaid officials.
Procedural History
Rubin was convicted of grand larceny and multiple counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the trial court. The Appellate Division reversed some convictions based on a related case (later reversed) finding the regulation facially unconstitutional. The People and Rubin cross-appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision regarding the vagueness challenge.
Issue(s)
Whether the public charge provision of the Medicaid reimbursement regulation (18 NYCRR 505.14 [h] [7] [ii] [a] [1]) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Rubin, given his knowledge and actions.
Holding
No, the public charge provision is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Rubin because there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove that the defendant understood the regulation and knowingly attempted to violate it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that a vagueness challenge must be addressed to the facts before the court. The court found that Rubin understood the public charge regulation, as evidenced by his creation of separate price schedules and instructions to staff to misrepresent rates to Medicaid officials. The Court noted that Rubin had received letters from the Department of Social Services explaining the regulation. Despite understanding the regulation, Rubin attested that his health care facility complied with all applicable state regulations. The court reasoned that because the evidence at trial showed the defendant understood the regulation, the regulation was not impermissibly vague as applied to him. The court stated, “When a person’s conduct falls within the proscriptions of a regulation, ‘a vagueness challenge must be addressed to the facts before the court’ (People v Nelson, 69 NY2d 302, 308).”