to the extent that it were used to provide services to Hope’s patients constitutes an “acquisition” in the plain meaning of the term. Id. at -, 691 S.E.2d at - (emphasis added). In the instant case, CCNC’s application clearly indicated that it was co-applicant AOR, using funds from its parent company USO, that would actually purchase the LINAC. The LINAC would then be transferred to CCNC’s possession and control to be used to provide services to CCNC’s patients. The fact that the funds used to purchase the LINAC would originate from USO is immaterial to our analysis, as the CON law allows applicants to rely upon other non-applicant entities for funding the proposed project. See Retirement Villages, Inc. v. N.C. Dept of Human Res., 124 N.C. App. 495, 499, 477 S.E.2d 697, 699 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we hold that AOR and CCNC were
holding that connecticut courts look to the identity or instrumentality test to determine whether one corporate entity can properly be held responsible for the obligations of another corporate entity holding that a district court can rely on the probation report and is not required to make independent findings regarding the defendants financial resources holding that the ij may not rely on a factually unsupported assertion in a state department report to deem an applicant not credible holding that the con statute allows a con applicant to rely on the financial resources of another entity for its funding holding that a party may not rely upon an estoppel defense against a governmental entity to support a breach of contract claim based upon an assertion of apparent authority of the agent signing the alleged contract on behalf of the entity