Garcia v. Blum
| Decision Date | 04 December 1978 |
| Citation | 410 N.Y.S.2d 658,66 A.D.2d 781 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Carmen GARCIA, Appellant, v. Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John C. Gray, Jr., Brooklyn Legal Services Corp. B., Brooklyn (E. Anne Hayes, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., New York City (Gerald Slotnik, Herbert J. Wallenstein and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, New York City, of counsel), for respondent State Commissioner.
Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel, New York City (L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for respondent City Commissioner ( the brief submitted by the State Commissioner).
Before MARTUSCELLO, J. P., and TITONE, HAWKINS and O'CONNOR, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Commissioner, dated April 4, 1978, and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency denying petitioner's application for child care, lunch and carfare to enable her to attend a specified vocational training school, petitioner appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 11, 1978, as dismissed the petition.
Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, determination annulled, petition granted, and respondents shall provide petitioner with child care, lunch and carfare allowances.
In our opinion the fact that petitioner was attending a school licensed by the New York State Department of Education, and, as appears from this record, had the personal qualifications to benefit from the proposed training, did not automatically entitle her to the benefits requested. The local agency had discretion to review and determine the petitioner's suitability for the program (see Matter of Priolo v. Toia, 94 Misc.2d 164, 404 N.Y.S.2d 223; Matter of Rogers v. Berger, 57 A.D.2d 722, 395 N.Y.S.2d 555; Social Services Law, § 131-a, subd. 6; 18 NYCRR 352.7(e)(1), 404.2(a), 416.2, 416.4).
At bar, however, the agency's denial of petitioner's application was not based upon her personal qualifications; the determination was merely that "(we are) (n)ot approving Beauty Culture Training". There is nothing in this record to show that the determination was rational and based, for example, on a study as to the nature of the industry and employment prospects therein. Under the circumstances, the determination was arbitrary and must be annulled.
Our decision is not to preclude respondents, in processing other similar applications with respect to beauty culture programs, from denying such applications either on the ground of lack of personal qualifications of the applicant or unsuitability of the program itself, providing that such determination is based on evidence in the record and is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kipp v. Blum
...60 days before the date of the fair hearing request (see Matter of Ware v. Shang, 73 A.D.2d 970, 424 N.Y.S.2d 250; Matter of Garcia v. Blum, 66 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 658; Matter of Kantanas v. Wyman, 38 A.D.2d 849, 329 N.Y.S.2d 872). Finally, we note that the applicable Federal regulatio......
-
Ware v. Shang
...of Kantanas v. Wyman, 38 A.D.2d 849, 329 N.Y.S.2d 872; Matter of Angelo v. Toia, 61 A.D.2d 1121, 402 N.Y.S.2d 881; Matter of Garcia v. Blum, 66 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 658). Under the view of the case thus adopted, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the further issue of the manner and suf......
-
Piasecki v. Blum
...subd. 4; see also 18 N.Y.C.R.R. 358.5(a)). It is a statutory time limit and may not be waived by the commissioner (Matter of Garcia v. Blum, 66 A.D.2d 781, 410 N.Y.S.2d 658). However, the notice of denial of any relief must state, among other things, that the applicant has 60 days within wh......
- Four Star Beer Dist., Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority