LaPoma v. New York State Departrment of Social Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

LaPoma v. New York State Departrment of Social Services

239 A.D.2d 170, 657 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4918

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 8, 1997·Published

Opinion

Determination of respondent New York State Department of Social Services, dated February 3, 1995, which, insofar as challenged herein, denied petitioner’s request for adoption subsidies at the "special” rate retroactive to January 24, 1984, the date the adoption was finalized, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered June 7, 1996), dismissed, without costs.

We reject respondents’ argument that petitioner’s claim is time-barred (see, Matter of Miller v Perales, 189 AD2d 874), but find that respondents’ interpretation of the relevant regulation [171] (18 NYCRR 421.24 [c] [14]), as not providing for awards of increased subsidies retroactive to the date of adoption, is not irrational (see, Matter of Costello v Perales, 167 AD2d 602). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent New York State Department of Social Services, dated February 3, 1995, which, insofar as challenged herein, denied petitioner’s request for adoption subsidies at the "special” rate retroactive to January 24, 1984, the date the adoption was finalized, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Sklar, J.], entered June 7, 1996), dismissed, without costs.

We reject respondents’ argument that petitioner’s claim is time-barred (see, Matter of Miller v Perales, 189 AD2d 874), but find that respondents’ interpretation of the relevant regulation [171] (18 NYCRR 421.24 [c] [14]), as not providing for awards of increased subsidies retroactive to the date of adoption, is not irrational (see, Matter of Costello v Perales, 167 AD2d 602). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

LaPoma v. New York State Departrment of Social Services, 239 A.D.2d 170, 657 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

239 A.D.2d 170 (LaPoma v. New York State Departrment of Social Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related