Deitch v. Doar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deitch v. Doar

51 A.D.3d 599, 857 N.Y.S.2d 493

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

DecidedMay 29, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 599 (Deitch v. Doar) 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

Deitch v. Doar, 51 A.D.3d 599, 857 N.Y.S.2d 493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision of respondent State Commissioner, dated August 14, 2006, upholding the determination of respondent City Commissioner to reduce petitioner’s public assistance benefits in order to recoup a rent advance, withdrawn, and the petition in this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Nicholas Figueroa, J.], entered May 18, 2007) unanimously granted, without costs, to the extent of directing the city respondent to restore petitioner’s benefits.

All parties agree that the state respondent should be permitted to withdraw its decision (see 18 NYCRR 358-6.6 [a]), thus obviating that portion of the petition seeking annulment of that decision. The state respondent agrees that the city respondent should be directed to restore petitioner’s benefits and the city respondent has presented no reason why it should not be so directed. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

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

Decision of respondent State Commissioner, dated August 14, 2006, upholding the determination of respondent City Commissioner to reduce petitioner’s public assistance benefits in order to recoup a rent advance, withdrawn, and the petition in this proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Nicholas Figueroa, J.], entered May 18, 2007) unanimously granted, without costs, to the extent of directing the city respondent to restore petitioner’s benefits.

All parties agree that the state respondent should be permitted to withdraw its decision (see 18 NYCRR 358-6.6 [a]), thus obviating that portion of the petition seeking annulment of that decision. The state respondent agrees that the city respondent should be directed to restore petitioner’s benefits and the city respondent has presented no reason why it should not be so directed. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Williams, Catterson and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 599, 857 N.Y.S.2d 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deitch-v-doar-nyappdiv-2008.