Regan v. D'Elia

82 A.D.2d 890
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 890 (Regan v. D'Elia) 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
Regan v. D'Elia, 82 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated October 18, 1979 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency to discontinue petitioner’s grant of public assistance on behalf of herself and her two minor children on the ground that she had failed to disclose information relating to her employment. Petition granted, determination annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to restore the benefits in question. Petitioner’s alleged misconduct may not serve to deprive her minor children of the assistance they are entitled to receive, without a prior finding of lack of need on their part (see Matter of Gunn v Blum, 48 NY2d 58; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690). The notice of discontinuance of assistance issued by respondents did not conform to the requirements of 45 CFR 205.10 (a) (4) (i) (B) insofar as it failed to state.“the specific regulations supporting [its] action”. The notice was, therefore, ineffective (see Matter of Foster v D’Elia, 72 AD2d 813). Although 18 NYCRR 358.9 requires that an investigation be conducted in order'to verify the status of a public assistance recipient prior to the issuance of a discontinuance or reduction notice, the record contains no evidence of compliance therewith. We thus find that there is insufficient evidence in the record as a whole to support the determination that petitioner willfully withheld information from the local agency regarding the receipt of income from employment (see Matter of De Pietto v Toia, 67 AD2d 663). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bryan v. Doar
38 A.D.3d 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Bryant v. Perales
161 A.D.2d 1186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Weaver v. Colorado Department of Social Services
791 P.2d 1230 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1990)
Collins v. D'Elia
104 A.D.2d 1035 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Bonelli v. Blum
97 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Lash v. Blum
97 A.D.2d 515 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Hamler v. D'Elia
97 A.D.2d 411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Summers v. D'Elia
95 A.D.2d 184 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
Jackson v. Blum
91 A.D.2d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/regan-v-delia-nyappdiv-1981.