Tessler v. Hammons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tessler v. Hammons

251 A.D.2d 63, 674 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6520

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

DecidedJune 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 63 (Tessler 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

Tessler v. Hammons, 251 A.D.2d 63, 674 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6520 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent New York State Department of Social Services dated November 21, 1996, which, after a hearing, affirmed the determination of respondent New York City Department of Social Services to discontinue petitioner’s Home Relief and Medical Assistance benefits for 90 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered May 30, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner’s non-compliance with the Work Experience Program (WEP) was willful and without good cause was supported by substantial evidence. The record discloses that petitioner, a WEP participant on two prior occasions, admitted that he received the work appointment notice requesting his appearance at the Office of Employment Services on September 17, 1996 for a work assignment assessment, but failed to call or visit the office, even after he realized at or near the appointment date that he had “misplaced” the appointment notice (see, Matter of Bonilla v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 219 AD2d 526, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent New York State Department of Social Services dated November 21, 1996, which, after a hearing, affirmed the determination of respondent New York City Department of Social Services to discontinue petitioner’s Home Relief and Medical Assistance benefits for 90 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Huff, J.], entered May 30, 1997) dismissed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner’s non-compliance with the Work Experience Program (WEP) was willful and without good cause was supported by substantial evidence. The record discloses that petitioner, a WEP participant on two prior occasions, admitted that he received the work appointment notice requesting his appearance at the Office of Employment Services on September 17, 1996 for a work assignment assessment, but failed to call or visit the office, even after he realized at or near the appointment date that he had “misplaced” the appointment notice (see, Matter of Bonilla v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 219 AD2d 526, lv denied 87 NY2d 807). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 63, 674 N.Y.S.2d 299, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tessler-v-hammons-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack