Acquasanta v. Toia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Acquasanta v. Toia

56 A.D.2d 705, 393 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 18, 1977·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed, with[706] out costs. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports the determination of respondent acting commissioner after a fair hearing that petitioner was the owner of a 1971 Chevrolet transferred to her by her brother, a serviceman stationed overseas, and that the automobile is an available resource not essential to the needs of the applicant and her dependent children (18 NYCRR 352.15 [d]). That being so, the determination that the resource must be utilized to reduce the public assistance to petitioner and her children was proper and is confirmed (18 NYCRR 352.11, 352.16). The children of the brother living with petitioner are not recipients of public assistance and respondent found that the transportation needs of the nieces were satisfied by public transportation and would not provide a basis for exempting the automobile from being considered an available resource in any event. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Oneida Supreme Court.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed, with[706] out costs. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports the determination of respondent acting commissioner after a fair hearing that petitioner was the owner of a 1971 Chevrolet transferred to her by her brother, a serviceman stationed overseas, and that the automobile is an available resource not essential to the needs of the applicant and her dependent children (18 NYCRR 352.15 [d]). That being so, the determination that the resource must be utilized to reduce the public assistance to petitioner and her children was proper and is confirmed (18 NYCRR 352.11, 352.16). The children of the brother living with petitioner are not recipients of public assistance and respondent found that the transportation needs of the nieces were satisfied by public transportation and would not provide a basis for exempting the automobile from being considered an available resource in any event. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Oneida Supreme Court.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Simons, Dillon, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

Acquasanta v. Toia, 56 A.D.2d 705, 393 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

56 A.D.2d 705 (Acquasanta v. Toia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related