Ayala v. Berlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ayala v. Berlin

92 A.D.3d 607, 940 N.Y.2d 217

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 607 (Ayala v. Berlin) 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

Ayala v. Berlin, 92 A.D.3d 607, 940 N.Y.2d 217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Filing a compliance complaint was not an appropriate remedy following the agency’s determination; indeed, the agency had complied with the fair hearing decision ordering it to determine petitioner’s eligibility for childcare benefits (see 18 NYCRR 358-6.4 [c]). However, before commencing this proceeding, [608]*608petitioner should have sought a fair hearing of the agency’s determination that she was ineligible for such benefits (see Social Services Law § 22 [5] [a], [d]). Because petitioner’s claims involve factual questions reviewable at the administrative level, her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies cannot be excused by the mere assertion of futility or a constitutional violation (see Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 86 NY2d 225, 232 [1995], cert denied 516 US 944 [1995]; Matter of Wilkins v Babbar, 294 AD2d 186, 187 [2002]). Accordingly, rather than dismiss the proceeding without prejudice to the filing of a compliance complaint, the court should have dismissed the proceeding without prejudice to seeking a fair hearing.

Given petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we need not reach her argument that the regulation at issue (18 NYCRR 385.4 [a] [1] [ii]) is invalid. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 942.]

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

Filing a compliance complaint was not an appropriate remedy following the agency’s determination; indeed, the agency had complied with the fair hearing decision ordering it to determine petitioner’s eligibility for childcare benefits (see 18 NYCRR 358-6.4 [c]). However, before commencing this proceeding, [608]*608petitioner should have sought a fair hearing of the agency’s determination that she was ineligible for such benefits (see Social Services Law § 22 [5] [a], [d]). Because petitioner’s claims involve factual questions reviewable at the administrative level, her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies cannot be excused by the mere assertion of futility or a constitutional violation (see Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 86 NY2d 225, 232 [1995], cert denied 516 US 944 [1995]; Matter of Wilkins v Babbar, 294 AD2d 186, 187 [2002]). Accordingly, rather than dismiss the proceeding without prejudice to the filing of a compliance complaint, the court should have dismissed the proceeding without prejudice to seeking a fair hearing.

Given petitioner’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we need not reach her argument that the regulation at issue (18 NYCRR 385.4 [a] [1] [ii]) is invalid. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 29 Misc 3d 942.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 607, 940 N.Y.2d 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ayala-v-berlin-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack