Carnegie v. Perales, 200 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Carnegie v. Perales, 200 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Weisshaus v. Port Authority (nysupct, 2015-07-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weisshaus v. Port Authority
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2015 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Group, 13 NY3d at 885-886 ; Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 275 [1996]; Matter of Rose, 111 AD3d at 1126; cf. Matter of Smith v Capasso, 200 AD2d 502, 502 [1st Dept 1994] [in camera review unnecessary where agency provided sufficiently detailed basis to support claim of exemption], lv denied 83 NY2d 756 [1994]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Audrey Carnegie
v.
Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Social Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 20, 1994.
200 A.D.2d 502
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.), entered July 21, 1992, which denied a petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, seeking to annul a decision, dated September 6, 1991, of the respondent, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services (State DSS), which affirmed, after a fair hearing, the determination of the respondent, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services (City DSS), to retain $16,333.00[*503] from petitioner’s retroactive Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) checks, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is undisputed that, pursuant to Social Services Law § 158 (a), the petitioner authorized the Federal Social Security Administration (SSA) to reimburse the City DSS for the Interim Assistance Home Relief (IAHR), which it had provided to her, pending Federal approval of her application for SSI benefits.

While petitioner does not dispute that the City DSS provided her with $15,128.38 in IAHR benefits, she contends that the City DSS can only be reimbursed from the first retroactive SSI check, which was in the amount of $8,248.15. We agree with the IAS Court that under Federal (42 USC § 1383 [g]) and State (Social Services Law § 158 [a]) law, as well as the State DSS regulations (18 NYCRR 370.7 [a] [2], [4]), the State DSS’ decision that the City DSS’ reimbursement for IAHR benefits is not limited to the first SSI retroactive check, when the IAHR provided exceeds the amount of that check, is rational. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.