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

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 705 (Acquasanta v. Toia) 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

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

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed, with[706]*706out 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]*706out 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 705, 393 N.Y.S.2d 133, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acquasanta-v-toia-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack