Stoughtenger v. Carrion

• Decision Date: 30 April 2010
• Citation: 72 A.D.3d 1484,899 N.Y.S.2d 765
• Parties: In the Matter of Lisa STOUGHTENGER, Petitioner, v. Gladys CARRION, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Children and Family Services, David A. Hansell, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and David Sutkowy, as Commissioner of Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 765

72 A.D.3d 1484

In the Matter of Lisa STOUGHTENGER, Petitioner,

v.Gladys CARRION, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Children and Family Services, David A. Hansell, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and David Sutkowy, as Commissioner of Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

April 30, 2010.

Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York, Syracuse (Maureen P. Kieffer of Counsel), for Petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Treasure of Counsel), for Respondents Gladys Carrion, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Children and Family Services, and David A. Hansell, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

Zachary L. Karmen, Syracuse, for Respondent David Sutkowy, as Commissioner of Onondaga County Department of Social Services.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner mother commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination terminating her child care benefits for one of her children on the ground that the child's father lives in proximity to the child and was available to provide child care. Supreme Court denied "the relief sought by the [mother] challenging ... respondents' conduct on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious" and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. We note at the outset that, "[a]lthough the petition challenges the determination as 'arbitrary and capricious[ ]' [and an error of law,] 'it is apparent that a challenge is being made to the factual findings [of the Administrative Law Judge following a fair hearing]. Thus, regardless of the terms used by [the mother], a substantial evidence issue has been raised, necessitating transfer to this [C]ourt' ... We therefore 'review the petition de novo as if it had been properly transferred [in its entirety]' " ( Matter of Re/Max All-Pro Realty v. New York State Dept. of State, Div. of Licensing Servs., 292 A.D.2d 831, 831, 739 N.Y.S.2d 321, lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 606, 746 N.Y.S.2d 456, 774 N.E.2d 221; see Matter of Hosmer v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 289 A.D.2d 1042, 1042, 735 N.Y.S.2d 289).

Contrary to the mother's contention, we conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180-181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183; Matter of Langler v. County of Cayuga, 68 A.D.3d 1775, 892 N.Y.S.2d 697). Social Services Law § 410 establishes when a public welfare official is required to furnish child care benefits. In pertinent part, it states that "[s]uch care may be provided only in cases where it is determined, under criteria established by the department [of social services], that there is a need therefor because of [the] inability of the parents to provide care and supervision...." Pursuant to 18 NYCRR 415.2, a family is eligible for child care benefits " when such care is not otherwise available from a legally responsible relative or caretaker ... and the care is a necessary part of a plan for self support" (emphasis added). A legally responsible relative "is any person who is legally obligated to furnishsupport for a spouse and child, or child only" (18 NYCRR 347.2[c] ), and a caretaker is "the child's parent, legal guardian...