Dunbar v. Toia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dunbar v. Toia

61 A.D.2d 914, 403 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495

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

DecidedMarch 14, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 914 (Dunbar v. Toia) 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

Dunbar v. Toia, 61 A.D.2d 914, 403 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment (denominated an order) of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 22, 1977, permitting petitioner Isamae Dunbar to examine her entire case file (with redaction of names of informants, if the informants are not to be witnesses) and declaring invalid portions of the regulations of the New York State Department of Social Services which may be in conflict with Federal regulations, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In Wishik v Dumpson (55 AD2d 593), we compared the State and Federal regulations which are now before -us. We held "With regard to a fair hearing, those rules [Federal] provide, inter alia, that a claimant shall have adequate opportunity '[t]o examine the contents of his case file and all documents and records to be used by the agency at the hearing as well as during the hearing’ and '[t]o establish all pertinent facts and circumstances’ (45 CFR 205.10 [a] [13] [i]; [13] [iv]).” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the position of appellant that petitioner may examine only that portion of the case file which is relevant to the hearing is untenable. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.; Silver-man, J., concurs under constraint of Wishik v Dumpson (55 AD2d 593).

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

Judgment (denominated an order) of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 22, 1977, permitting petitioner Isamae Dunbar to examine her entire case file (with redaction of names of informants, if the informants are not to be witnesses) and declaring invalid portions of the regulations of the New York State Department of Social Services which may be in conflict with Federal regulations, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements. In Wishik v Dumpson (55 AD2d 593), we compared the State and Federal regulations which are now before -us. We held "With regard to a fair hearing, those rules [Federal] provide, inter alia, that a claimant shall have adequate opportunity '[t]o examine the contents of his case file and all documents and records to be used by the agency at the hearing as well as during the hearing’ and '[t]o establish all pertinent facts and circumstances’ (45 CFR 205.10 [a] [13] [i]; [13] [iv]).” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the position of appellant that petitioner may examine only that portion of the case file which is relevant to the hearing is untenable. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Evans and Sullivan, JJ.; Silver-man, J., concurs under constraint of Wishik v Dumpson (55 AD2d 593).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 914, 403 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunbar-v-toia-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack