Crespo v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crespo v. Crespo

13 A.D.3d 68, 786 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14716

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 68 (Crespo v. Crespo) 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

Crespo v. Crespo, 13 A.D.3d 68, 786 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2003, which vacated a magistrate’s order of support and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In granting the objection of the New York City Human Resources Administration to the underlying order of support, the motion court properly determined that pursuant to the clear holdings of the Court of Appeals, petitioner’s expenses as the “community spouse” may not be categorized as exceptional to those permitted under Social Services Law § 366-c, such as to entitle her to increased community spousal support from her institutionalized husband under the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (42 USC § 1396r-5). The intent behind this legislative scheme is to ensure that the community spouse has sufficient—but not excessive—income and resources while the institutionalized (primary income-producing) spouse is in a nursing home at Medicaid expense (Matter of Schachner v Perales, 85 NY2d 316, 323 [1995]). Maintenance of prior lifestyle at public expense is not the intent of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (Matter of Gomprecht v Gomprecht, 86 NY2d 47, 52 [1995]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Tandra L. Dawson, J.), entered on or about October 23, 2003, which vacated a magistrate’s order of support and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In granting the objection of the New York City Human Resources Administration to the underlying order of support, the motion court properly determined that pursuant to the clear holdings of the Court of Appeals, petitioner’s expenses as the “community spouse” may not be categorized as exceptional to those permitted under Social Services Law § 366-c, such as to entitle her to increased community spousal support from her institutionalized husband under the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (42 USC § 1396r-5). The intent behind this legislative scheme is to ensure that the community spouse has sufficient—but not excessive—income and resources while the institutionalized (primary income-producing) spouse is in a nursing home at Medicaid expense (Matter of Schachner v Perales, 85 NY2d 316, 323 [1995]). Maintenance of prior lifestyle at public expense is not the intent of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act (Matter of Gomprecht v Gomprecht, 86 NY2d 47, 52 [1995]). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Marlow and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 68, 786 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crespo-v-crespo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack