We have previously held the contested Regulation invalid to the extent indicated ( Seittelman v. Sabol, supra) and see no reason now to depart from that holding, particularly since the arguments presented on the present appeal are, for the most part, no different from those we expressly and painstakingly rejected on the prior appeal.
Adhering to Seittelman in other relevant respects, we find class-wide relief to have been appropriately granted here, "plaintiffs having established that the described class met all the prerequisites for class certification, including numerosity, typicality, adequacy of representation, and predominance of common questions of law and fact (CPLR 901; Weinberg v. Hertz Corp., 116 A.D.2d 1, 4, affd 69 N.Y.2d 979), and that the interpretation and application of the Medicaid law to the underlying controversy, concerning the legality of the challenged Regulation and violation of the plaintiffs' notice rights, would have a class-wide impact" ( Seittelman v. Sabol, supra, at 526). And, once again, given respondents' continuing failure to propose their own plan for remedying the problems attributable to the invalidated portion of the Regulation ( see, supra), we reject respondents' contention that the government operations rule prohibits class certification. Nor, in light of respondents' manifest reluctance to comply with Seittelman, do we find persuasive respondents' claim that class certification is unnecessary since the named class will benefit from any relief afforded to the class certified in Seittelman. We have considered respondents' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.