Farr v. Blum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farr v. Blum

64 A.D.2d 848, 407 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12708

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 848 (Farr v. Blum) 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

Farr v. Blum, 64 A.D.2d 848, 407 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12708 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Denman, J., not participating. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals in an article 78 proceeding the determination of the State Commissioner of Social Services, after a "fair hearing”, which held that petitioner was not entitled to a security deposit under 18 NYCRR 352.6. Since petitioner failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for a security deposit, the agency was not required to produce substantial evidence in support of its denial (Lavine v Milne, 424 US 577). Petitioner neither "verified by specific medical diagnosis” his illness (18 NYCRR 352.6 [a] [1] [ii], [b]) nor moved "to a less expensive rental property” (18 NYCRR 352.6 [a] [1] [i]) to qualify him for a security deposit. Moreover, in "the judgment of a social services official” housing accommodations not requiring security deposits were not "insufficient to properly accommodate recipients of public assistance in need of housing” (Social Services Law, § 143-c, subd 3; 18 NYCRR 352.6 [b] [3]). The agency, properly denied petitioner’s application. (Article 78 proceeding

transferred by order of Cattaraugus Supreme Court.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs. Denman, J., not participating. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals in an article 78 proceeding the determination of the State Commissioner of Social Services, after a "fair hearing”, which held that petitioner was not entitled to a security deposit under 18 NYCRR 352.6. Since petitioner failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for a security deposit, the agency was not required to produce substantial evidence in support of its denial (Lavine v Milne, 424 US 577). Petitioner neither "verified by specific medical diagnosis” his illness (18 NYCRR 352.6 [a] [1] [ii], [b]) nor moved "to a less expensive rental property” (18 NYCRR 352.6 [a] [1] [i]) to qualify him for a security deposit. Moreover, in "the judgment of a social services official” housing accommodations not requiring security deposits were not "insufficient to properly accommodate recipients of public assistance in need of housing” (Social Services Law, § 143-c, subd 3; 18 NYCRR 352.6 [b] [3]). The agency, properly denied petitioner’s application. (Article 78 proceeding

transferred by order of Cattaraugus Supreme Court.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Denman and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 848, 407 N.Y.S.2d 339, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farr-v-blum-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack