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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 13, 2011·Published

Opinion

[771] The 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] The 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.

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

Pincite

90 A.D.3d 770 (Urrutia v. Daines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related