Brewster v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brewster v. Smith

80 A.D.2d 914, 437 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10802

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 1981·Published

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Commissioner of Social Services, dated February 25, 1977, which, after a statutory fair hearing, affirmed determinations of the local agency which (1) terminated petitioner’s grant of home relief and (2) denied his application for such aid, on the ground that he willfully concealed income. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. This court previously ordered a new hearing to determine whether petitioner willfully concealed income (see Matter of Brewster v Dumpson, 54 AD2d 563). In our opinion, the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s conviction of grand larceny in the second degree for the same acts upon which respondents based their determinations, more than adequately constitutes substantial evidence of the willful concealment of income. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Cohalan, 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 of Social Services, dated February 25, 1977, which, after a statutory fair hearing, affirmed determinations of the local agency which (1) terminated petitioner’s grant of home relief and (2) denied his application for such aid, on the ground that he willfully concealed income. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. This court previously ordered a new hearing to determine whether petitioner willfully concealed income (see Matter of Brewster v Dumpson, 54 AD2d 563). In our opinion, the determination is supported by substantial evidence. Petitioner’s conviction of grand larceny in the second degree for the same acts upon which respondents based their determinations, more than adequately constitutes substantial evidence of the willful concealment of income. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Brewster v. Smith, 80 A.D.2d 914, 437 N.Y.S.2d 394, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

80 A.D.2d 914 (Brewster v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related