Gonzalez v. State of New York Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. State of New York Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance

89 A.D.3d 547, 932 N.Y.2d 487

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.3d 547 (Gonzalez v. State of New York Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance) 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

Gonzalez v. State of New York Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance, 89 A.D.3d 547, 932 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The subject petition raised an issue of substantial evidence and thus the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) (see e.g. Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc., 27 AD3d 388 [2006]). Accordingly, we will “treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred” (Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio, 180 AD2d 590, 591 [1992]).

The determination to discontinue petitioner’s public assistance benefits after she failed to return the required eligibility questionnaire is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The subject petition raised an issue of substantial evidence and thus the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) (see e.g. Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc., 27 AD3d 388 [2006]). Accordingly, we will “treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred” (Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio, 180 AD2d 590, 591 [1992]).

The determination to discontinue petitioner’s public assistance benefits after she failed to return the required eligibility questionnaire is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 547, 932 N.Y.2d 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-state-of-new-york-office-of-temporary-disability-assistance-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack