Rauch v. DeBuono

265 A.D.2d 797, 696 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9813
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 1, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 797 (Rauch v. DeBuono) 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
Rauch v. DeBuono, 265 A.D.2d 797, 696 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition [798]*798dismissed. Memorandum: Although this proceeding should not have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) inasmuch as the issue of substantial evidence was not raised, we nevertheless consider the merits in the interest of judicial economy (see, Matter of Moulden v Coughlin, 210 AD2d 997). Following an administrative hearing, the New York State Department of Health (DOH) found petitioner’s decedent, the institutionalized spouse, ineligible to receive Medicaid benefits due to his excess resources. DOH determined that the actual monthly income of petitioner, the community spouse, including income from the community spouse resource allowance (CSRA), fell below the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance. DOH did not, however, raise petitioner’s CSRA by the resources attributed to decedent (see, Social Services Law § 366-c [8] [c]; 18 NYCRR 360-4.10 [c] [7]). DOH interpreted the statute and regulation to allow such an increase in the community spouse’s CSRA only when the additional resources produced income at the time of decedent’s application for Medicaid benefits. We conclude that the determination of DOH is not arbitrary or capricious and is a reasonable interpretation of the statute and regulation (see, Matter of Golf v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 91 NY2d 656, 665, 667; see generally, Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 NY2d 434, 438, rearg denied 29 NY2d 749). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, Jr., J.) Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

Related

Oznor Corp. v. County of Monroe
60 A.D.3d 1492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D.2d 797, 696 N.Y.S.2d 923, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rauch-v-debuono-nyappdiv-1999.