Bush v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bush v. Wing

283 A.D.2d 332, 724 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5407

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

DecidedMay 24, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 332 (Bush v. Wing) 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

Bush v. Wing, 283 A.D.2d 332, 724 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of State respondents, dated July 14, 1999, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed the determination of the New York City Human Resources Administration discontinuing petitioner’s public assistance benefits on May 15, 1999, pursuant to the Notice of Intent dated May 5, 1999, due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements of New York City’s Work Experience Program (WEP), unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Paula Omansky, J.], entered on or about January 14, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The decision issued following the fair hearing, finding that petitioner had willfully failed to appear for her WEP work assignment, was supported by substantial evidence. Termination of benefits was properly based on petitioner’s refusal to accept any work assignment that would conflict with her school schedule (see, Matter of Smith v Wing, 248 AD2d 216). Petitioner never inquired concerning any possible reduced WEP schedule to accommodate her classes. Furthermore, she had withdrawn from classes prior to the May 15th date. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that she was denied due process by the manner in which the fair hearing was [333]*333conducted, and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Determination of State respondents, dated July 14, 1999, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed the determination of the New York City Human Resources Administration discontinuing petitioner’s public assistance benefits on May 15, 1999, pursuant to the Notice of Intent dated May 5, 1999, due to petitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements of New York City’s Work Experience Program (WEP), unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Paula Omansky, J.], entered on or about January 14, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The decision issued following the fair hearing, finding that petitioner had willfully failed to appear for her WEP work assignment, was supported by substantial evidence. Termination of benefits was properly based on petitioner’s refusal to accept any work assignment that would conflict with her school schedule (see, Matter of Smith v Wing, 248 AD2d 216). Petitioner never inquired concerning any possible reduced WEP schedule to accommodate her classes. Furthermore, she had withdrawn from classes prior to the May 15th date. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments, including that she was denied due process by the manner in which the fair hearing was [333]*333conducted, and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 332, 724 N.Y.S.2d 851, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bush-v-wing-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack