Velasquez v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velasquez v. Perales

151 A.D.2d 766, 543 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9222

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

DecidedJune 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 766 (Velasquez 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

Velasquez v. Perales, 151 A.D.2d 766, 543 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Commissioner dated June 22, 1987, which, after a hearing, disqualified the petitioner from the food stamp program.

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

[767]*767The petitioner argues that the local agency did not show by clear and convincing evidence that she intentionally violated the regulations of the food stamp program. In a review of administrative determinations, appellate courts do not review facts de novo and arrive at an independent determination. Our function is to determine whether the State Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of O’Rourke v Kirby, 54 NY2d 8, 14; Matter of Block v Ambach, 140 AD2d 814, 816, affd 73 NY2d 323). The State Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence as the local agency proved that the petitioner was aware of her duty to report employment income but failed to do so. Moreover, his decision not to credit her self-serving evidence was rational and therefore not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Hopkins v Blum, 87 AD2d 613, affd 58 NY2d 1011). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, 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 State Commissioner dated June 22, 1987, which, after a hearing, disqualified the petitioner from the food stamp program.

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

[767]*767The petitioner argues that the local agency did not show by clear and convincing evidence that she intentionally violated the regulations of the food stamp program. In a review of administrative determinations, appellate courts do not review facts de novo and arrive at an independent determination. Our function is to determine whether the State Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of O’Rourke v Kirby, 54 NY2d 8, 14; Matter of Block v Ambach, 140 AD2d 814, 816, affd 73 NY2d 323). The State Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence as the local agency proved that the petitioner was aware of her duty to report employment income but failed to do so. Moreover, his decision not to credit her self-serving evidence was rational and therefore not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Hopkins v Blum, 87 AD2d 613, affd 58 NY2d 1011). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 766, 543 N.Y.S.2d 137, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velasquez-v-perales-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack