Parow v. County of Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parow v. County of Dutchess

120 A.D.2d 718, 502 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56841

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

DecidedMay 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 718 (Parow v. County of Dutchess) 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

Parow v. County of Dutchess, 120 A.D.2d 718, 502 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated July 26, 1984, which, after a fair hearing, upheld the local agency’s denial of the petitioner’s application for medical assistance benefits.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The State Commissioner’s finding that the petitioner had a present interest in various joint bank accounts and certain commercial realty and that these assets were transferred to her husband for the purpose of qualifying the petitioner for medical assistance is supported by substantial evidence. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated July 26, 1984, which, after a fair hearing, upheld the local agency’s denial of the petitioner’s application for medical assistance benefits.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

The State Commissioner’s finding that the petitioner had a present interest in various joint bank accounts and certain commercial realty and that these assets were transferred to her husband for the purpose of qualifying the petitioner for medical assistance is supported by substantial evidence. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 718, 502 N.Y.S.2d 659, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parow-v-county-of-dutchess-nyappdiv-1986.