Rodriguez v. Dumpson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rodriguez v. Dumpson

47 A.D.2d 877, 366 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9274

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

DecidedApril 15, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 877 (Rodriguez v. Dumpson) 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

Rodriguez v. Dumpson, 47 A.D.2d 877, 366 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent State Commissioner of Social Services, dated June 5, 1974, affirming determination of the New York City Department of Social Services, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the proceeding remanded for rehearing, without costs and without disbursements. The determination, to reduce the petitioner’s public assistance was based upon the report of a handwriting expert that was accepted as evidence, over the petitioner’s objection, without the expert appearing for direct testimony or cross examination. This court has persistently condemned this practice (Boyd v Wyman, 39 AD2d 874; Matter of White v Lavine, 41 AD2d 723; Matter of Morales v Lavine, 41 AD2d 627). In view of our decision, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the petition. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State Commissioner of Social Services, dated June 5, 1974, affirming determination of the New York City Department of Social Services, unanimously annulled, on the law, and the proceeding remanded for rehearing, without costs and without disbursements. The determination, to reduce the petitioner’s public assistance was based upon the report of a handwriting expert that was accepted as evidence, over the petitioner’s objection, without the expert appearing for direct testimony or cross examination. This court has persistently condemned this practice (Boyd v Wyman, 39 AD2d 874; Matter of White v Lavine, 41 AD2d 723; Matter of Morales v Lavine, 41 AD2d 627). In view of our decision, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by the petition. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 877, 366 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-dumpson-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack