Ziemelis v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ziemelis v. Perales

124 A.D.2d 587, 507 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61897

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 587 (Ziemelis 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

Ziemelis v. Perales, 124 A.D.2d 587, 507 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Special Term properly denied the petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner’s attorneys were superfluous since the petitioner, before the instant proceeding was commenced, had secured the reinstatement of his food-stamp authorization and the restoration of his lost benefits solely through his own efforts. The petitioner failed to show that it was necessary to bring a proceeding to compel the respondents to comply with the fair hearing decision reinstating his food-stamp authorization (see, Coen v Harrison County School Bd., 638 F2d 24, reh denied 644 F2d 34, cert denied 455 US 938; Commissioners Ct. of Medina County, Tex. v United States, 683 F2d 435; American Constitutional Party v Munro, 650 F2d 184; Taylor v [588]*588Safeway Stores, 524 F2d 263). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Special Term properly denied the petitioner’s application for attorneys’ fees on the ground that the services rendered by the petitioner’s attorneys were superfluous since the petitioner, before the instant proceeding was commenced, had secured the reinstatement of his food-stamp authorization and the restoration of his lost benefits solely through his own efforts. The petitioner failed to show that it was necessary to bring a proceeding to compel the respondents to comply with the fair hearing decision reinstating his food-stamp authorization (see, Coen v Harrison County School Bd., 638 F2d 24, reh denied 644 F2d 34, cert denied 455 US 938; Commissioners Ct. of Medina County, Tex. v United States, 683 F2d 435; American Constitutional Party v Munro, 650 F2d 184; Taylor v [588]*588Safeway Stores, 524 F2d 263). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 587, 507 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziemelis-v-perales-nyappdiv-1986.