Thomas v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Perales

192 A.D.2d 613, 596 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3583

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

DecidedApril 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 613 (Thomas v. Perales) 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

Thomas v. Perales, 192 A.D.2d 613, 596 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated April 13, 1990, made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency denying the petitioner’s request for a rent subsidy.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[614]*614Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the petitioner was not entitled to a rent subsidy. Preventive services in the form of rent subsidies are available only where the child is in foster care and the primary factor preventing the discharge of the child is the lack of adequate housing (see, Social Services Law § 409-a [5] [c]; 18 NYCRR 423.4 [b] [1]; 430.9 [e] [2] [i] [a]). The evidence here showed that, at the time the petitioner applied for a rent subsidy, her child had already been discharged to her. In any event, it was the petitioner’s drug problem, not a lack of adequate housing, which was the primary factor which previously prevented the child’s discharge. We therefore confirm the determination. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated April 13, 1990, made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency denying the petitioner’s request for a rent subsidy.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

[614]*614Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the petitioner was not entitled to a rent subsidy. Preventive services in the form of rent subsidies are available only where the child is in foster care and the primary factor preventing the discharge of the child is the lack of adequate housing (see, Social Services Law § 409-a [5] [c]; 18 NYCRR 423.4 [b] [1]; 430.9 [e] [2] [i] [a]). The evidence here showed that, at the time the petitioner applied for a rent subsidy, her child had already been discharged to her. In any event, it was the petitioner’s drug problem, not a lack of adequate housing, which was the primary factor which previously prevented the child’s discharge. We therefore confirm the determination. Thompson, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 613, 596 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-perales-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack