On June 28, 2023 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
People Of The State Of New York, By Letitia James, Attorney General Of The State Of New York,
and
Abraham Operations Associates Llc Dba Beth Abraham Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing,
Aharon Lantzitsky,
Amir Abramchik,
Aron Gittleson,
Beth Rozenberg,
Bis Funding Capital Llc,
Centers For Care Llc Dba Centers Health Care,
Cfsc Downstate Llc,
Daryl Hagler,
David Greenberg,
Delaware Operations Associates Llc Dba Buffalo Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing,
Delaware Real Property Associates Llc,
Elliot Kahan,
Hollis Operating Co Llc Dba Holliswood Center For Rehabilitation And Healthcare,
Hollis Real Estate Co Llc,
Jeffrey Sicklick,
Jonathan Hagler,
Kenneth Rozenberg,
Leo Lerner,
Light Property Holdings Ii Associates Llc,
Mordechai Moti Hellman,
Reuven Kaufman,
Schnur Operations Associates Llc Dba Martine Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing,
Skilled Staffing Llc,
Sol Blumenfeld,
for Commercial - Other - Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
State of New York
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT
Letitia James
Attorney General
________
AMY HELD PAUL J. MAHONEY
Director Assistant Deputy Attorney General
By NYSCEF & Email April 1, 2024
Justice Melissa Anne Crane
Supreme Court, New York County
60 Centre Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: People v. Abraham Operation Assoc. LLC, et al., Index # 451549/2023
Dear Justice Crane:
Petitioner objects to the Centers Respondents’ March 29, 2024, letter (Dkt. 873; hereinafter the “March
29 Letter”), the second half of which is an improper sur-reply—the third such improper sur-reply that
Respondents have filed in the last three weeks. The Court should strike and disregard the second part of
the March 29 Letter purporting to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12) to deter
Respondents’ repeated disregard for court rules and the agreed-upon schedule in this proceeding.
The parties agreed on a schedule whereby they would submit one letter about the legislative history of
Executive Law § 63(12) and two letters about the continuing wrongs doctrine; the Court approved this
agreement. See Ex. A (email from the Court approving post-hearing letter schedule). In fact, the single-
submission idea was Respondents’ suggestion in negotiations over the schedule with Petitioner. See Ex.
B (email chain between the parties negotiating post-hearing letter schedule). On Thursday, March 21,
counsel for the Centers Respondents, called counsel for Petitioner to ask if Petitioner would consent to an
additional letter about the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12). Petitioner declined to consent,
explaining that the parties had agreed to the schedule weeks ago and that the Court had asked only to be
given the legislative history materials (see Dkt. 817, Argument Tr. at 116, 180-81), which the parties
submitted with their March 15 letters. But, rather than seek leave from the Court to file an additional
submission, the Centers Respondents decided to ignore the parties’ agreement and file a second letter
purporting to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12). For this reason alone, the Court
should strike or disregard the second part of the March 29 Letter.
Moreover, while the March 29 Letter purports to address the legislative history of § 63(12), it does not
actually do so. Rather, the Centers Respondents disingenuously use their purported “Legislative history
reply” to reargue the merits of their Motion to Dismiss and to continue their improper sur-reply arguments.
For example, the Centers Respondents argue that there can be no fraud “where material facts have been
disclosed,” and that there can be no claims premised on fraudulent Medicaid certifications in “the absence
of evidence of what itemized services were claimed to have been, but not, provided.” (See Dkt. 873, March
2|Hon.Melissa Crane April 1, 2024
29 Letter at 2.) These arguments have nothing to do with the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12),
and indeed, are no more than rehash of Centers’ Motion to Dismiss.
Egregiously, this is Respondents’ third improper sur-reply, coming after their first from March 15, where
the Hagler Respondents submitted a sur-reply about preemption (see Dkt. 860), and the second from
March 20, where the Centers Respondents submitted a sur-reply about the recent decision in People v.
Cold Spring Acquisition, LLC (see Dkt. 867). Petitioner already objected to both letters. 1 (See Dkt. 866,
870.) But the Centers Respondents were apparently undeterred and unsatisfied with their first improper
sur-reply. Rather than respect court rules and the parties’ agreed-upon schedule, the Centers Respondents
decided to double down on their improper conduct by interjecting more argument regarding the recent
Cold Spring decision in the March 29 Letter. However, as Petitioner already noted, such argument violates
Commercial Division Rule 18, which prohibits “additional argument” in letters informing the court of
relevant post-submission decisions. (See Dkt. 870.) Respondents’ initial attempt to submit argument on
the Cold Spring decision was improper, and its current attempt to do so by way of a feigned “legislative
history reply” is no less improper.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should strike or disregard the second section of the Centers
Respondents’ March 29 Letter that purports to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12)
but that is in reality a second improper sur-reply.
Respectfully submitted,
LETITIA JAMES
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: _______________________
Konrad F. Payne
Special Assistant Attorney General
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
Office of the New York State
Attorney General
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
(212) 417-5409
konrad.payne@ag.ny.gov
Cc: All counsel via NYSCEF
1
Petitioner respectfully renews its request that the Court either (1) strike or disregard these letters, or (2)
permit Petitioner to address these topics in its own letter replies.
2
Preview
State of New York OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT Letitia James Attorney General ________ AMY HELD PAUL J. MAHONEY Director Assistant Deputy Attorney General By NYSCEF & Email April 1, 2024 Justice Melissa Anne Crane Supreme Court, New York County 60 Centre Street New York, NY 10007 Re: People v. Abraham Operation Assoc. LLC, et al., Index # 451549/2023 Dear Justice Crane: Petitioner objects to the Centers Respondents’ March 29, 2024, letter (Dkt. 873; hereinafter the “March 29 Letter”), the second half of which is an improper sur-reply—the third such improper sur-reply that Respondents have filed in the last three weeks. The Court should strike and disregard the second part of the March 29 Letter purporting to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12) to deter Respondents’ repeated disregard for court rules and the agreed-upon schedule in this proceeding. The parties agreed on a schedule whereby they would submit one letter about the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12) and two letters about the continuing wrongs doctrine; the Court approved this agreement. See Ex. A (email from the Court approving post-hearing letter schedule). In fact, the single- submission idea was Respondents’ suggestion in negotiations over the schedule with Petitioner. See Ex. B (email chain between the parties negotiating post-hearing letter schedule). On Thursday, March 21, counsel for the Centers Respondents, called counsel for Petitioner to ask if Petitioner would consent to an additional letter about the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12). Petitioner declined to consent, explaining that the parties had agreed to the schedule weeks ago and that the Court had asked only to be given the legislative history materials (see Dkt. 817, Argument Tr. at 116, 180-81), which the parties submitted with their March 15 letters. But, rather than seek leave from the Court to file an additional submission, the Centers Respondents decided to ignore the parties’ agreement and file a second letter purporting to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12). For this reason alone, the Court should strike or disregard the second part of the March 29 Letter. Moreover, while the March 29 Letter purports to address the legislative history of § 63(12), it does not actually do so. Rather, the Centers Respondents disingenuously use their purported “Legislative history reply” to reargue the merits of their Motion to Dismiss and to continue their improper sur-reply arguments. For example, the Centers Respondents argue that there can be no fraud “where material facts have been disclosed,” and that there can be no claims premised on fraudulent Medicaid certifications in “the absence of evidence of what itemized services were claimed to have been, but not, provided.” (See Dkt. 873, March 2|Hon.Melissa Crane April 1, 2024 29 Letter at 2.) These arguments have nothing to do with the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12), and indeed, are no more than rehash of Centers’ Motion to Dismiss. Egregiously, this is Respondents’ third improper sur-reply, coming after their first from March 15, where the Hagler Respondents submitted a sur-reply about preemption (see Dkt. 860), and the second from March 20, where the Centers Respondents submitted a sur-reply about the recent decision in People v. Cold Spring Acquisition, LLC (see Dkt. 867). Petitioner already objected to both letters. 1 (See Dkt. 866, 870.) But the Centers Respondents were apparently undeterred and unsatisfied with their first improper sur-reply. Rather than respect court rules and the parties’ agreed-upon schedule, the Centers Respondents decided to double down on their improper conduct by interjecting more argument regarding the recent Cold Spring decision in the March 29 Letter. However, as Petitioner already noted, such argument violates Commercial Division Rule 18, which prohibits “additional argument” in letters informing the court of relevant post-submission decisions. (See Dkt. 870.) Respondents’ initial attempt to submit argument on the Cold Spring decision was improper, and its current attempt to do so by way of a feigned “legislative history reply” is no less improper. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should strike or disregard the second section of the Centers Respondents’ March 29 Letter that purports to address the legislative history of Executive Law § 63(12) but that is in reality a second improper sur-reply. Respectfully submitted, LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: _______________________ Konrad F. Payne Special Assistant Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Office of the New York State Attorney General 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 417-5409 konrad.payne@ag.ny.gov Cc: All counsel via NYSCEF 1 Petitioner respectfully renews its request that the Court either (1) strike or disregard these letters, or (2) permit Petitioner to address these topics in its own letter replies. 2