Dumbleton v. Reed
| Decision Date | 18 July 1975 |
| Citation | 49 A.D.2d 687,371 N.Y.S.2d 521 |
| Parties | Application of Joseph DUMBLETON, etc., Petitioner, v. James REED, Director of Monroe County Department of Social Services and Abe Lavine, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel F. Cashman, Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., Rochester, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., Albany, William J. Goldman, Rochester, for respondent, Lavine.
Sam DiLalla, Rochester, for respondent, Reed.
Before MARSH, P.J., and CARDAMONE, MAHONEY, DEL VECCHIO and WITMER, JJ.
Respondent Reed denied petitioner's application for medical assistance on the ground that his non-exempt income exceeds $650 per month (the critical limit for a man with a wife and six children: Social Services Law, § 366, subd. 2(a)), and after a 'fair hearing' respondent Lavine affirmed the denial. This Article 78 proceeding to review such determination was transferred to us by Special Term, presumably because of the hearing had and findings made by respondent Lavine. In the petition, however, the findings of fact are undisputed and only a question of law is presented. Special Term, therefore, should have decided the matter instead of transferring it to this court (CPLR 7804(g)). Nevertheless, we shall entertain and determine it (Matter of Conklin v. Riley, 41 A.D.2d 597, 340 N.Y.S.2d 884; Matter of Willow Garden Apartments, Inc. v. Riker, 36 A.D.2d 892, 320 N.Y.S.2d 148).
The question presented is whether in computing petitioner's nonexempt income, as a basis for determining his eligibility to receive medical assistance, respondents should have excluded the monthly Federal Insurance Contributions Act (F.I.C.A.--Social Security) taxes ($42.83) which are deducted from his earnings. If such item were deductible and excluded from his income, petitioner's non-exempt income would be less than $650 per month and he would be eligible for medical assistance (Social Services Law, § 366, subd. 2(a)).
The Federal statute (42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.), authorizing Federal grants to the States for medical assistance to the needy, requires States desiring to participate in benefits thereunder to draft and submit for the approval of the Secretary of Health a plan compatible with the Federal standards, that is, to 'include reasonable standards * * * for determining eligibility for and extent of medical assistance (and) provide for taking into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary, available to the applicant or recipient * * *' (§ 1396a(a)(17); emphasis supplied). The State of New York enacted Title 11, 'Medical Assistance For Needy Persons', of Article 5 of the Social Services Law, particularly section 363--a, to comply with the above Federal statute, and this plan was approved by the Secretary of Health. The State plan made specific provisions concerning the assets and income of an applicant which would be deemed exempt from consideration in determining whether he was entitled to medical assistance. Subdivision (5) of subdivision 2(a) of section 366 thereof specifies that 'income taxes' paid by an applicant shall be deducted from his earnings in considering whether his income is within the amount listed in the table insubdivision (8) thereof which allows an applicant with eight dependents, including himself, to qualify for medical assistance if his income does not exceed $650 per month, exclusive of all exemptions listed in the section.
Petitioner argues with much merit that F.I.C.A. taxes deducted from his income are no more 'available' to him for his support than are the amounts deducted for income taxes. Respondents answer, however, that in preparing its plan for medical assistance the Legislature fixed a maximum amount which applicant may earn,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shook v. Lavine
...papers before this court are sufficient to enable the case to be disposed of, we should do so (CPLR 7804(g), Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687, 371 N.Y.S.2d 521, 1975). As to the constitutional questions raised by petitioners, the court may treat this proceeding as an action for de......
-
Estate of Little, Matter of
...to her. In support of that position, the executor cites Matter of Scrivani, 116 Misc.2d 204, 455 N.Y.S.2d 505, Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687, 371 N.Y.S.2d 521, and Simmons v. Van Alstyne, 65 A.D.2d 869, 410 N.Y.S.2d 400. In Scrivani, the conservator moved to renounce an inherit......
-
Turner v. Reed
...should, therefore, not be accorded (see Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42, 371 N.Y.S.2d 422, 332 N.E.2d 303; Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687, 371 N.Y.S.2d 521; Matter of Shook v. Lavine, 49 A.D.2d 238, 374 N.Y.S.2d Judgment (denom. Order) unanimously reversed and petition d......
-
Bonaccorso v. Toia
...moving papers even though respondent requests that alternative remedy. Only a question of law remains. (Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687, 371 N.Y.S.2d 521, 4th Dept. After due deliberation, having considered the arguments and papers submitted for and against the parties' respectiv......