Triant v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Triant v. Perales

120 A.D.2d 534, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56604

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

DecidedMay 5, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 534 (Triant 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

Triant v. Perales, 120 A.D.2d 534, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56604 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated May 3, 1985, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency, deducting the full amount of the petitioner’s interim Home Relief grant from her Supplemental Security Income grant.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements (see, Matter of Goodwin v Perales, 120 AD2d 527).

We note that the instant proceeding should not have been transferred to this court since no substantial evidence questions are presented by it. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we have determined the issues raised by the proceeding (see, Matter of Moore v Kirby, 81 AD2d 836). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, 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 New York State Commissioner of Social Services, dated May 3, 1985, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency, deducting the full amount of the petitioner’s interim Home Relief grant from her Supplemental Security Income grant.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements (see, Matter of Goodwin v Perales, 120 AD2d 527).

We note that the instant proceeding should not have been transferred to this court since no substantial evidence questions are presented by it. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we have determined the issues raised by the proceeding (see, Matter of Moore v Kirby, 81 AD2d 836). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 534, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/triant-v-perales-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack