Martinez v. Perales, 572 N.E.2d 39 (N.Y. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Martinez v. Perales, 572 N.E.2d 39 (N.Y. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cleary v. Perales (nyappdiv, 1993-03-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Cleary v. Perales
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
It was, as observed by the IAS Court, essential to "correct or cure a condition that causes acute suffering and interferes with [petitioner’s] capacity for normal activity.” As such, the denial of this benefit to petitioner was in violation of his rights pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 , which encompasses violations of Federal statutes, including the Social Security Act (Matter of Thomasel v Perales, supra, at 568; see, Matter of Martinez v Perales, 77 NY2d 923, 925 ; Matter of Haussman v Kirby, 96 AD2d 244, 247 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Luz Martinez
v.
Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 2, 1991.
572 N.E.2d 39
1991 N.Y. LEXIS 367
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Lillian Z. Cohen of counsel), for appellant., Marc Cohan and John C. Gray, Jr., for Luz Martinez, respondent., Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (Ellen B. Fishman of counsel), for Harvey Robins, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, respondent.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

Because the parties settled petitioner’s underlying claims, petitioner is a prevailing party within the meaning of 42 USC § 1988 (Maher v Gagne, 448 US 122). Petitioner’s 42 USC § 1983 claim that respondents violated 45 CFR 205.10 (a) (4) in failing to specify the regulation authorizing the termination of benefits fully supports an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.