Ratz v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ratz v. Wing

240 A.D.2d 340, 659 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957

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

DecidedJune 26, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D.2d 340 (Ratz v. Wing) 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

Ratz v. Wing, 240 A.D.2d 340, 659 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent State Department of Social Services dated November 15, 1995, which, after a fair hearing, upheld the determination of the City Department of Social Services discontinuing petitioner’s public assistance benefits for a period of 90 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this [341]*341Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, JJ, entered June 20, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner willfully and without just cause failed to appear for a scheduled Work Experience Program assignment on July 31, 1995 is supported by substantial evidence, including, inter alia, petitioner’s own testimony at the fair hearing that he chose to go to an appointment at the District Attorney’s Office instead of his work assignment (see, Matter of Allen v Dowling, 214 AD2d 446). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State Department of Social Services dated November 15, 1995, which, after a fair hearing, upheld the determination of the City Department of Social Services discontinuing petitioner’s public assistance benefits for a period of 90 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this [341]*341Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Herman Cahn, JJ, entered June 20, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner willfully and without just cause failed to appear for a scheduled Work Experience Program assignment on July 31, 1995 is supported by substantial evidence, including, inter alia, petitioner’s own testimony at the fair hearing that he chose to go to an appointment at the District Attorney’s Office instead of his work assignment (see, Matter of Allen v Dowling, 214 AD2d 446). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Rubin and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 340, 659 N.Y.S.2d 759, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratz-v-wing-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack