Knowles v. Lavine

New York Court of Appeals

Knowles v. Lavine

313 N.E.2d 342, 34 N.Y.2d 721, 356 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1634

New York Court of Appeals·Decided May 2, 1974·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term with directions to remand to the respondent State Department of Social Services for a new hearing.

[722] Respondent discontinued petitioner’s public assistance grant until she - sells her 1972 automobile and utilizes the resources toward her income. The determination was based on findings that the automobile was not an essential resource because public transportation was available to petitioner and that moneys could be realized from its sale which would either eliminate or reduce petitioner’s need for public assistance. Neither of these findings is supported by substantial evidence on the record. On a new hearing it will be necessary to establish the availability of transportation and that the automobile is a currently valuable asset whose sale would result in a cash surplus which could then be applied to petitioner’s needs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

Memorandum. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term with directions to remand to the respondent State Department of Social Services for a new hearing.

[722] Respondent discontinued petitioner’s public assistance grant until she - sells her 1972 automobile and utilizes the resources toward her income. The determination was based on findings that the automobile was not an essential resource because public transportation was available to petitioner and that moneys could be realized from its sale which would either eliminate or reduce petitioner’s need for public assistance. Neither of these findings is supported by substantial evidence on the record. On a new hearing it will be necessary to establish the availability of transportation and that the automobile is a currently valuable asset whose sale would result in a cash surplus which could then be applied to petitioner’s needs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Rabin and Stevens concur.

Judgment reversed, without costs, and the matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Knowles v. Lavine, 313 N.E.2d 342, 34 N.Y.2d 721, 356 N.Y.S.2d 864, 1974 N.Y. LEXIS 1634 (N.Y. 1974).

Pincite

313 N.E.2d 342 (Knowles v. Lavine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related