Sutton v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sutton v. Wing

249 A.D.2d 945, 671 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047

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

DecidedApril 29, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 945 (Sutton 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

Sutton v. Wing, 249 A.D.2d 945, 671 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports respondents’ determination that petitioner willfully and without good cause failed or refused to comply with the requirements of her Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program by failing to keep an Employment/Training appointment (see, Matter of Bishop v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 246 AD2d 391; Matter of Vicari v Wing, 244 AD2d 974; Matter of Blake v Wing, 244 AD2d 969; Matter of Allen v Dowling, 214 AD2d 446, 447; see generally, Social Services Law § 341 [1]; 18 NYCRR 385.0, 385.2, 385.18 [c] [4]; 385.19 [c] [2]; [d] [2]; [e]). Respondents thus properly suspended petitioner’s public assistance benefits pursuant to Social Services Law § 131 (5). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports respondents’ determination that petitioner willfully and without good cause failed or refused to comply with the requirements of her Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program by failing to keep an Employment/Training appointment (see, Matter of Bishop v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 246 AD2d 391; Matter of Vicari v Wing, 244 AD2d 974; Matter of Blake v Wing, 244 AD2d 969; Matter of Allen v Dowling, 214 AD2d 446, 447; see generally, Social Services Law § 341 [1]; 18 NYCRR 385.0, 385.2, 385.18 [c] [4]; 385.19 [c] [2]; [d] [2]; [e]). Respondents thus properly suspended petitioner’s public assistance benefits pursuant to Social Services Law § 131 (5). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.) Present — Den-man, P. J., Green, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 945, 671 N.Y.S.2d 397, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-wing-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack