Piasecki v. Blum
| Decision Date | 26 November 1980 |
| Citation | 433 N.Y.S.2d 520,78 A.D.2d 950 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Victoria PIASECKI, Appellant, v. Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James R. Sheldon, Jr., Kingston, for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Carl E. Stephan, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for respondents.
Before GREENBLOTT, J. P., and SWEENEY, KANE, MAIN and MIKOLL, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (), to annul a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, made after a fair hearing, which denied petitioner retroactive home relief assistance.
Petitioner applied for home relief assistance from the Ulster County Department of Social Services on December 20, 1977, but her application was denied on the ground the Department was unable to verify her residence (18 N.Y.C.R.R. 351.2(b)). Upon reapplication, she was granted assistance commencing on March 16, 1978, and we are only concerned with the denial of assistance on a retroactive basis for the period January 1 to March 15, 1978. The evidence offered at the hearing on this matter to uphold the agency's position consisted of (1) petitioner's original application; (2) a handwritten paragraph initialed by an investigator of the local department's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) which stated that while two visits were made to petitioner's claimed address, she was not present, and her mother would not let the investigator into the house; (3) an unsigned and uninitialed typed memorandum from SIU reciting essentially the same thing; and (4) the applicable rules and regulations.
There are two issues to be resolved. First, was the request for a fair hearing timely and, second, is the decision of the Commissioner supported by substantial evidence?
An appeal from an adverse agency determination must be requested within 60 days (Social Services Law, § 22, 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 which to contest an adverse determination at a fair hearing; that there is a right to counsel; and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Perales
...Matter of Zellweger v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 74 N.Y.2d 404, 408, 547 N.Y.S.2d 824, 547 N.E.2d 79; Matter of Piasecki v. Blum, 78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 520; Matter of Angelo v. Toia, 61 A.D.2d 1121, 402 N.Y.S.2d 881). Thus, petitioner's request for a fair hearing was time......
-
Strack v. Perales, 1
...time period (see, Matter of Zellweger v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 148 A.D.2d 865, 539 N.Y.S.2d 149; Matter of Piasecki v. Blum, 78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 520). A review of the legislative history of Social Services Law § 22(4) supports our If [the] agency action is adverse t......
-
Zellweger on Behalf of Zellweger v. New York State Dept. of Social Services
...and permits a determination on the merits (see, Matter of Melgar v. D'Elia, 96 A.D.2d 1101, 1102, 467 N.Y.S.2d 4; Matter of Piasecki v. Blum, 78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 520). Inasmuch as the record does not indicate a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we find the appellant's claim for attorne......
-
Zellweger on Behalf of Zellweger v. New York State Dept. of Social Services
...agency fails to accord the applicant proper notice of the reasons for denial and the remedies available (see, Matter of Piasecki v. Blum, 78 A.D.2d 950, 433 N.Y.S.2d 520). Social Services Law § 22(12) sets forth various notice requirements, including the right to request a fair hearing, the......