Acosta v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acosta v. Blum

80 A.D.2d 610, 436 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10299

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 17, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 610 (Acosta v. Blum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Acosta v. Blum, 80 A.D.2d 610, 436 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated May 4, 1979 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to reduce petitioner’s public assistance grant in order to recoup overpayments caused by her willful failure to report the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to return to petitioner the amounts withheld from her grant. The State commissioner’s determination must be annulled as the record contains no evidence that petitioner was notified that she must report changes in income or resources which might affect the amount of the grant of public assistance (18 NYCRR 352.31 [d] [2] [3]; 45 CFR 233.20 [a] [12] [i]; Matter of Curry v Blum, 73 AD2d 965; Matter of Rivera v Dumpson, 54 AD2d 646). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated May 4, 1979 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to reduce petitioner’s public assistance grant in order to recoup overpayments caused by her willful failure to report the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to return to petitioner the amounts withheld from her grant. The State commissioner’s determination must be annulled as the record contains no evidence that petitioner was notified that she must report changes in income or resources which might affect the amount of the grant of public assistance (18 NYCRR 352.31 [d] [2] [3]; 45 CFR 233.20 [a] [12] [i]; Matter of Curry v Blum, 73 AD2d 965; Matter of Rivera v Dumpson, 54 AD2d 646). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 610, 436 N.Y.S.2d 50, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-blum-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack