Martin v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Perales

123 A.D.2d 865, 507 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60980

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 865 (Martin v. Perales) 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

Martin v. Perales, 123 A.D.2d 865, 507 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60980 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated September 27, 1983, which, inter alia, after a statutory fair hearing, denied the petitioner additional benefits for that portion of her domestic utility service used for hearing purposes, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered February 14, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondents’ determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 [866]*866NY2d 863, 864). The remainder of the petitioner’s contentions, including the allegations of constitutional error, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated September 27, 1983, which, inter alia, after a statutory fair hearing, denied the petitioner additional benefits for that portion of her domestic utility service used for hearing purposes, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered February 14, 1985, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondents’ determination is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Levine v New York State Liq. Auth., 23 [866]*866NY2d 863, 864). The remainder of the petitioner’s contentions, including the allegations of constitutional error, are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 865, 507 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-perales-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack