Urrutia v. Daines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urrutia v. Daines

90 A.D.3d 770, 934 N.Y.2d 343

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A.D.3d 770 (Urrutia v. Daines) 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

Urrutia v. Daines, 90 A.D.3d 770, 934 N.Y.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[771]*771The determination of the New York State Department of Health, made after a hearing, affirming a determination of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of LoBlanco v Hansell, 83 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2011]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate “significant financial distress” caused by “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of the spousal impoverishment provisions of federal and state law (42 USC § 1396r-5 [e] [2] [B]; Social Services Law § 366-c [8] [b]; 18 NYCRR 360-4.10 [a], [b]; see Matter of Balzarini v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 16 NY3d 135, 142-144 [2011]; Matter of Schachner v Perales, 85 NY2d 316, 322 [1995]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, a “community spouse” is not entitled to an amount in excess of the statutory minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance absent a showing of such exceptional circumstances (Matter of Gomprecht v Gomprecht, 86 NY2d 47, 52 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[771]*771The determination of the New York State Department of Health, made after a hearing, affirming a determination of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of LoBlanco v Hansell, 83 AD3d 1072, 1073 [2011]). The petitioner failed to demonstrate “significant financial distress” caused by “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of the spousal impoverishment provisions of federal and state law (42 USC § 1396r-5 [e] [2] [B]; Social Services Law § 366-c [8] [b]; 18 NYCRR 360-4.10 [a], [b]; see Matter of Balzarini v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 16 NY3d 135, 142-144 [2011]; Matter of Schachner v Perales, 85 NY2d 316, 322 [1995]). Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, a “community spouse” is not entitled to an amount in excess of the statutory minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance absent a showing of such exceptional circumstances (Matter of Gomprecht v Gomprecht, 86 NY2d 47, 52 [1995]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 770, 934 N.Y.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urrutia-v-daines-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack