MATTER OF LALANI v. JO BANE

The record supports respondent's finding that the medical necessity of the random orders reviewed was not "fully and properly documented in the client[s'] medical record[s]" (18 18 NYCRR 518.3 [b]). No evidence was presented by petitioner to overcome the presumption of validity of the statistical sampling method employed by respondent ( 18 NYCRR 519.18 [g]), or of the computerized record of services ordered by him in arriving at the total amount of restitution demanded for overpayments ( 18 NYCRR 519.18 [f]). In the circumstances, the two-year exclusion of petitioner from the program was not excessive (see, Matter of Huda v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 191 A.D.2d 405).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.