Sirota v. Hammons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sirota v. Hammons

264 A.D.2d 343, 694 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777

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

DecidedAugust 19, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 A.D.2d 343 (Sirota v. Hammons) 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

Sirota v. Hammons, 264 A.D.2d 343, 694 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 29, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination temporarily discontinuing petitioner’s home relief and medical assistance benefits as a sanction for her willful refusal to comply with the requirements of the Work Experience Program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected petitioner’s claim that she was denied due process at the fair hearing because an interpreter was not present for the entirety thereof. The record shows that petitioner did not request an interpreter until just before the conclusion of the hearing, did not utilize the interpreter’s services to present any additional information, and displayed sufficient ability to understand and speak the English language (see, People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272). We have considered petitioner’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 29, 1997, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondents’ determination temporarily discontinuing petitioner’s home relief and medical assistance benefits as a sanction for her willful refusal to comply with the requirements of the Work Experience Program, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly rejected petitioner’s claim that she was denied due process at the fair hearing because an interpreter was not present for the entirety thereof. The record shows that petitioner did not request an interpreter until just before the conclusion of the hearing, did not utilize the interpreter’s services to present any additional information, and displayed sufficient ability to understand and speak the English language (see, People v Ramos, 26 NY2d 272). We have considered petitioner’s additional arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 343, 694 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sirota-v-hammons-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack