Ortiz v. Human Resources Administration

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ortiz v. Human Resources Administration

272 A.D.2d 266, 708 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113

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

DecidedMay 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 266 (Ortiz v. Human Resources Administration) 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

Ortiz v. Human Resources Administration, 272 A.D.2d 266, 708 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 15, 1999, which denied petitioner food stamp sub-vendor’s application to annul respondent’s determination not to alter its reinstatement agreement with petitioner, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision not to alter its reinstatement agreement with petitioner by eliminating the condition that petitioner not employ his son in his business was not arbitrary and capricious. Such decision was rationally based on the fraud that petitioner’s son had committed against the food stamp program when employed by petitioner, and on a reasonable reading of the condition as permanent. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered June 15, 1999, which denied petitioner food stamp sub-vendor’s application to annul respondent’s determination not to alter its reinstatement agreement with petitioner, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision not to alter its reinstatement agreement with petitioner by eliminating the condition that petitioner not employ his son in his business was not arbitrary and capricious. Such decision was rationally based on the fraud that petitioner’s son had committed against the food stamp program when employed by petitioner, and on a reasonable reading of the condition as permanent. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Ellerin, Lerner, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 266, 708 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-human-resources-administration-nyappdiv-2000.