Clark v. Lavine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clark v. Lavine

55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 A.D.2d 932 (Clark v. Lavine) 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

Clark v. Lavine, 55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated October 24, 1975, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services denying petitioner’s application for medical assistance, the State commissioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 3, 1976, which, inter alia, annulled the determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs to petitioner. Petitioner, an 88-year-old widow, applied for medical assistance. The application was denied because she had transferred real and personal property to her son within one year prior to the application. Appellant determined, after a fair hearing, that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption, contained in section 366 (subd 1, par [e]) of the Social Services Law, that the transfers were made for the purpose of qualifying for assistance, and that the real property failed to qualify for a homestead exemption pursuant to section 366 (subd 2, par [a], cl [1]) of the Social Services Law, because petitioner would never return home again. Petitioner challenged these rulings in this article 78 proceeding and was upheld by Special Term, which found that the evidence adduced at the hearing adequately proved that the transfers were made for valuable consideration and that the real property transferred had qualified for the homestead exemption. A review of the record supports the conclusions of Special Term. Petitioner submitted evidence which satisfies the statute; an offer by petitioner of additional evidence was waived by appellant. Whether the property was transferred before or after the application for medical assistance was submitted makes no difference (cf. Matter of Mondello v D’Elia, 39 NY2d 978). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated October 24, 1975, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the Dutchess County Department of Social Services denying petitioner’s application for medical assistance, the State commissioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated May 3, 1976, which, inter alia, annulled the determination. Judgment affirmed, with costs to petitioner. Petitioner, an 88-year-old widow, applied for medical assistance. The application was denied because she had transferred real and personal property to her son within one year prior to the application. Appellant determined, after a fair hearing, that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption, contained in section 366 (subd 1, par [e]) of the Social Services Law, that the transfers were made for the purpose of qualifying for assistance, and that the real property failed to qualify for a homestead exemption pursuant to section 366 (subd 2, par [a], cl [1]) of the Social Services Law, because petitioner would never return home again. Petitioner challenged these rulings in this article 78 proceeding and was upheld by Special Term, which found that the evidence adduced at the hearing adequately proved that the transfers were made for valuable consideration and that the real property transferred had qualified for the homestead exemption. A review of the record supports the conclusions of Special Term. Petitioner submitted evidence which satisfies the statute; an offer by petitioner of additional evidence was waived by appellant. Whether the property was transferred before or after the application for medical assistance was submitted makes no difference (cf. Matter of Mondello v D’Elia, 39 NY2d 978). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 932, 390 N.Y.S.2d 644, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-lavine-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack