## Facts

- Hamptons Hospital & Medical Center, Inc. sought approval to establish a 220-bed private hospital in Suffolk County, New York.
- In 1972, the Public Health Council (PHC) adopted a resolution that it “proposed to approve” the project, subject to specified financing conditions.
- Hamptons did not satisfy the financing conditions for roughly four years, and no final approval issued.
- In 1976, the Department of Health began reviewing pending hospital projects using a different, updated methodology for assessing public need; staff concluded there was no need for Hamptons’ project.
- A planning subcommittee determined the facility would create a surplus of hospital beds and recommended disapproval for lack of public need.
- On April 22, 1977, the PHC stated it was considering disapproving the application and advised that disapproval would become final unless Hamptons requested a hearing within 20 days.
- Hamptons did not proceed to an administrative hearing; instead, it filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding to prevent reconsideration of public need.

## Issues

1. Whether the PHC could re-evaluate a prior, conditional determination of public need that had not resulted in final approval.
2. Whether state health authorities were equitably estopped, based on the applicant’s reliance, from reconsidering the 1972 “proposed approval.”
3. Whether converting the article 78 proceeding into an injunction action under Public Health Law § 2801-c was proper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the petition.
- The PHC had authority to reconsider public need because the 1972 action was conditional and nonfinal.
- The PHC and related state officials were not estopped from re-evaluating public need despite Hamptons’ claimed reliance.
- The Appellate Division erred in converting the matter into an action for injunctive relief under Public Health Law § 2801-c.

## Legal Principles

- A conditional, interlocutory agency action that does not confer final approval may be revisited by the agency within the ongoing regulatory process.
- In public health planning, agencies retain continuing responsibility to assess and reassess “public need” in light of current conditions and methodologies to prevent unnecessary or excess capacity.
- Equitable estoppel against the government is applied sparingly and will not be used to compel agency action that would frustrate statutory policy designed to protect the public.
- Reliance on a tentative, conditional approval—especially where the applicant has not satisfied conditions precedent and final approval has not issued—does not create a vested right to prevent reconsideration.
- Public Health Law § 2801-c does not supply injunctive relief for a proposed facility to block nonfinal administrative reconsideration where article 78 provides the appropriate procedural vehicle.

## Conclusion

Because the PHC’s 1972 “proposed approval” was expressly conditional and never became final, the PHC could re-evaluate public need using updated planning methods, and the state was not estopped from doing so; the petition to stop reconsideration was properly dismissed.


Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88 (N.Y. 1981)