Gatto v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gatto v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services

267 A.D.2d 385, 701 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 385 (Gatto v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services) 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

Gatto v. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, 267 A.D.2d 385, 701 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Health, dated December 24, 1996, which, after a fair hearing, found that neither the petitioner Jeanette Cotraro, nor her husband Vincent Cotraro could deduct the taxes and maintenance on their marital premises from the payments they made for their nursing home care.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent New York State Department of Health (hereinafter the NYSDOH) determined after a fair hearing that the petitioner Jeanette Cotraro, and Vincent Cotraro (hereinafter the Cotraros) could not deduct the taxes and maintenance on their marital premises from the payments they made for their nursing home care. The petitioners do not dispute that the Cotraros were required to pay all of their rental income toward the cost of their nursing home care, but argued that they could deduct the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises from the calculation of their rental [386]*386income. The NYSDOH determined at the fair hearing that the Cotraros were not responsible for paying the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises after they entered the nursing home. Therefore, those expenses could not be deducted from their rental income, and they were required to pay their entire rental income toward their nursing home care.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. It is well settled that an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence when the evidence consists of “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180). There was substantial evidence at the fair hearing to support the determination that the Cotraros were not responsible for paying the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises after they entered the nursing home. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Health, dated December 24, 1996, which, after a fair hearing, found that neither the petitioner Jeanette Cotraro, nor her husband Vincent Cotraro could deduct the taxes and maintenance on their marital premises from the payments they made for their nursing home care.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent New York State Department of Health (hereinafter the NYSDOH) determined after a fair hearing that the petitioner Jeanette Cotraro, and Vincent Cotraro (hereinafter the Cotraros) could not deduct the taxes and maintenance on their marital premises from the payments they made for their nursing home care. The petitioners do not dispute that the Cotraros were required to pay all of their rental income toward the cost of their nursing home care, but argued that they could deduct the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises from the calculation of their rental [386]*386income. The NYSDOH determined at the fair hearing that the Cotraros were not responsible for paying the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises after they entered the nursing home. Therefore, those expenses could not be deducted from their rental income, and they were required to pay their entire rental income toward their nursing home care.

Contrary to the petitioners’ contention, the determination was supported by substantial evidence. It is well settled that an administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence when the evidence consists of “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180). There was substantial evidence at the fair hearing to support the determination that the Cotraros were not responsible for paying the taxes and maintenance on the marital premises after they entered the nursing home. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 385, 701 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gatto-v-suffolk-county-department-of-social-services-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack