Moschella v. Romano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moschella v. Romano

110 A.D.2d 702, 488 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48597

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 702 (Moschella v. Romano) 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

Moschella v. Romano, 110 A.D.2d 702, 488 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48597 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[703]*703Based upon the evidence presented before the agency, we cannot say that the denial of petitioner’s application for Emergency Assistance for Adults was arbitrary or capricious (see, Social Services Law § 303 [1] [m]; 18 NYCRR 397.5 [1] [2]).

Petitioner contends for the first time in this proceeding that the local agency gave him inadequate notice of the denial of benefits. As this issue was not raised before the agency, it has not been preserved for this court’s review. In any event, the notice was adequate (see, Matter of Schevchik v Blum, 89 AD2d 680; Matter of Herring v Blum, 68 AD2d 64).

We have considered such other of petitioner’s contentions as have been preserved for our review and find them to be lacking in merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

[703]*703Based upon the evidence presented before the agency, we cannot say that the denial of petitioner’s application for Emergency Assistance for Adults was arbitrary or capricious (see, Social Services Law § 303 [1] [m]; 18 NYCRR 397.5 [1] [2]).

Petitioner contends for the first time in this proceeding that the local agency gave him inadequate notice of the denial of benefits. As this issue was not raised before the agency, it has not been preserved for this court’s review. In any event, the notice was adequate (see, Matter of Schevchik v Blum, 89 AD2d 680; Matter of Herring v Blum, 68 AD2d 64).

We have considered such other of petitioner’s contentions as have been preserved for our review and find them to be lacking in merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 702, 488 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moschella-v-romano-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack