McBride v. Perez

New York Court of Appeals

McBride v. Perez

435 N.E.2d 397, 56 N.Y.2d 563, 450 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3237

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 435 N.E.2d 397 (McBride v. Perez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McBride v. Perez, 435 N.E.2d 397, 56 N.Y.2d 563, 450 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3237 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In the circumstances disclosed in this record it was not error as a matter of law for the Appellate Division to reinstate that portion of the petition which sought a determination that the letters sent to residents and operators of residential care facilities suggesting that approximately $100 of the special energy allowance paid in January, 1980 [565]*565“were an abuse of discretion and were arbitrary and capricious”, and thereupon to convert the proceeding to an action for a declaratory judgment and in the converted action to grant the declaration sought. In so holding, we do not reach or address the contention of appellants that the special energy allowance granted by the Congress under Public Law No. 96-126 was not a “personal allowance” within the meaning of section 131-o of the Social Services Law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In the circumstances disclosed in this record it was not error as a matter of law for the Appellate Division to reinstate that portion of the petition which sought a determination that the letters sent to residents and operators of residential care facilities suggesting that approximately $100 of the special energy allowance paid in January, 1980 [565]*565“were an abuse of discretion and were arbitrary and capricious”, and thereupon to convert the proceeding to an action for a declaratory judgment and in the converted action to grant the declaration sought. In so holding, we do not reach or address the contention of appellants that the special energy allowance granted by the Congress under Public Law No. 96-126 was not a “personal allowance” within the meaning of section 131-o of the Social Services Law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

435 N.E.2d 397, 56 N.Y.2d 563, 450 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-perez-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack