Gallimore v. Wingate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gallimore v. Wingate

282 A.D.2d 675, 724 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975

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

DecidedApril 23, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 675 (Gallimore v. Wingate) 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

Gallimore v. Wingate, 282 A.D.2d 675, 724 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Adjudged that the petition is granted, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination is annulled, and the petitioner’s benefits are restored.

The evidence adduced at the fair hearing was insufficient to justify the inference that the petitioner willfully failed or refused to comply with the pertinent regulations requiring, inter alia, that she undergo an employment evaluation as a condition of her continued receipt of public assistance (see, 12 NYCRR 1300.6; Matter of Gear v Perales, 105 AD2d 1066). Rather, we agree with the petitioner’s contentions that the cancellation of school and her need to be home to care for her children due to the approach of Hurricane Floyd constituted good cause to excuse her failure to appear for a scheduled employment assessment (see, 12 NYCRR 1300.6, 1300.12 [c]; Matter of Benjamin v McGowan, 275 AD2d 290).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Adjudged that the petition is granted, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the determination is annulled, and the petitioner’s benefits are restored.

The evidence adduced at the fair hearing was insufficient to justify the inference that the petitioner willfully failed or refused to comply with the pertinent regulations requiring, inter alia, that she undergo an employment evaluation as a condition of her continued receipt of public assistance (see, 12 NYCRR 1300.6; Matter of Gear v Perales, 105 AD2d 1066). Rather, we agree with the petitioner’s contentions that the cancellation of school and her need to be home to care for her children due to the approach of Hurricane Floyd constituted good cause to excuse her failure to appear for a scheduled employment assessment (see, 12 NYCRR 1300.6, 1300.12 [c]; Matter of Benjamin v McGowan, 275 AD2d 290).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 675, 724 N.Y.S.2d 69, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallimore-v-wingate-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack