96 N.Y.2d 505 (2001)
A statute or regulation is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and is written in a way that permits arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
Summary
This case addresses whether a New York Medicaid regulation defining reimbursement rates for personal care services providers is unconstitutionally vague. The regulation mandates that providers be reimbursed at the lower of either the rate they charge the general public or a rate determined by the Department of Social Services (DSS). The Court of Appeals held that the terms “general public” and “rate,” as used in the regulation, are not so vague as to be unintelligible to a person of ordinary intelligence or to invite arbitrary enforcement, reversing the Appellate Division’s determination of facial invalidity and remitting the case for further proceedings.
Facts
Ulster Home Care was investigated by the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) for allegedly overcharging Medicaid for personal care services by approximately $600,000. MFCU contended that Ulster should have billed Medicaid at the lower rate it charged the general public instead of the higher DSS-determined rate. The Attorney General initiated criminal fraud and larceny charges. Ulster Home Care then commenced a civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that its contract with Ulster County precluded the Attorney General from altering the reimbursement rate and challenging the regulation’s validity.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied Ulster Home Care’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the regulation facially invalid due to undefined terms like “general public” and “rate.” The Attorney General appealed to the New York Court of Appeals from the Supreme Court judgment following an award of attorney’s fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the phrase “the rate the provider charges the general public for personal care services” in the Medicaid regulation is unconstitutionally vague.
Holding
No, because the terms used have a common understanding and are used in other state and federal regulations.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the regulation was not unconstitutionally vague. The court emphasized that a statute or regulation is unconstitutionally vague only if it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence with a reasonable opportunity to understand what is prohibited and is written in a way that invites arbitrary enforcement. The Court reasoned that both terms, “general public” and “rate,” have a common understanding and are used in other state Medicaid and Medicare regulations. "Neither the term ‘general public’ nor ‘rate’ as used in the regulation is so vague that it could not be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence or could be arbitrarily enforced." Furthermore, the court noted that the regulation’s limited application to home personal care providers enrolled in the Medicaid program and their agreement to adhere to its rules further diminished any vagueness concerns. The court also stated that plaintiffs should have been required to show that the regulation was unconstitutional as applied to them, given their conduct fell within its proscriptions. Finally, the Court noted that Ulster was not being prosecuted for violating the regulation itself, but rather for grand larceny and filing false instruments; the regulation’s violation was merely an element of proof. The Court cited Bryson v. United States, stating "a claim of unconstitutionality will not be heard to excuse a voluntary, deliberate and calculated course of fraud and deceit."