statutory fair hearing in New York

1986Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see, Matter of Goodwin v Perales, 120 AD2d 527 ).

1986Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements (see, Matter of Goodwin v Perales, 120 AD2d 527 ).

1995At the statutory fair hearing, Nassau DSS presented sufficient evidence that it followed "an established and regularly followed office procedure designed to insure that notices to claimants are properly addressed and mailed” (Matter of Gonzalez [Ross] 47 NY2d 922, 923 ).

1986As petitioner has been successful on his claim, which is cognizable under 42 USC § 1983 , the case must be remitted to Special Term to afford respondents an opportunity to demonstrate whether special circumstances exist which would bar an award of counsel fees (see, 42 USC § 1988 ), and, if not, to fix a reasonable fee in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Matter of Rahmey v Blum ( 95 AD2d 294 ).

1986—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Blum, dated February 5, 1982 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed a determination of the local agency discontinuing petitioner’s grant of public assistance in the category of aid to dependent children, which determination was annulled by this court (Matter of Unger v Blum, 99 AD2d 494 ), the local agency appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated November 26, 1984, as, upon remittitur for a hearing to determine reaso

1985The evidence further establishes that the notice of intent to discontinue petitioner’s public assistance grant detailed the reason for the discontinuance, and that the notice was served upon the petitioner only after the respondent local agency had investigated the reasons for petitioner’s failure to accept the referral (18 NYCRR 358.9), and had verified that such failure was willful (18 NYCRR 351.22 [e]; Allen v Blum, 58 NY2d 954 ).

1984H Petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements, without prejudice to renewal after determination of an application to be made by petitioners for intervention and injunctive relief in a class action entitled Lewis v Krauskopf (79 Civ 1740), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 1 Pursuant to the decision of this court in Matter of South Nassau Communities Hosp. v D’Elia ( 71 AD2d 110, 118-120 , affd 53 NY2d 827 ), and the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter ofPapadopoulos v Shang ( 67 AD2d 84 ), persons such

1984H Petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements, without prejudice to renewal after determination of an application to be made by petitioners for intervention and injunctive relief in a class action entitled Lewis v Krauskopf (79 Civ 1740), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 1 Pursuant to the decision of this court in Matter of South Nassau Communities Hosp. v D’Elia ( 71 AD2d 110, 118-120 , affd 53 NY2d 827 ), and the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter ofPapadopoulos v Shang ( 67 AD2d 84 ), persons such

1984— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Commissioner, dated January 4,1982 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which confirmed a determination of the local agency, prorating, pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.32 (e) (1), the amount of public assistance grants paid to two separate Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients residing in petitioner’s home. 11 Petition granted to the extent that the determination insofar as it relates to the AFDC basic needs grants is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents

1984— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State Commissioner, dated January 4,1982 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which confirmed a determination of the local agency, prorating, pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.32 (e) (1), the amount of public assistance grants paid to two separate Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients residing in petitioner’s home. 11 Petition granted to the extent that the determination insofar as it relates to the AFDC basic needs grants is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents

1984H Petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements, without prejudice to renewal after determination of an application to be made by petitioners for intervention and injunctive relief in a class action entitled Lewis v Krauskopf (79 Civ 1740), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 1 Pursuant to the decision of this court in Matter of South Nassau Communities Hosp. v D’Elia ( 71 AD2d 110, 118-120 , affd 53 NY2d 827 ), and the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter ofPapadopoulos v Shang ( 67 AD2d 84 ), persons such

1983We note preliminarily that while the local agency does not have standing to seek review of the State commissioner’s determination (see Matter of Bosh v Fahey, 53 NY2d 896 ; Matter of Beaudoin v Toia [Jorczak\, 45 NY2d 343 ), Martin and Sandra P., who were aggrieved by that determination, were granted leave to intervene by order of this court dated May 24, 1983.

1983We note preliminarily that while the local agency does not have standing to seek review of the State commissioner’s determination (see Matter of Bosh v Fahey, 53 NY2d 896 ; Matter of Beaudoin v Toia [Jorczak\, 45 NY2d 343 ), Martin and Sandra P., who were aggrieved by that determination, were granted leave to intervene by order of this court dated May 24, 1983.

1982Y., 24 NY2d 174 ; Matter of Kemp v Fossella, 80 AD2d 897 ; Matter of Fasani v Rappaport, 30 AD2d 588 .) The decision of the State commissioner was based upon evidence adduced at a statutory fair hearing at which all interested parties were accorded an opportunity to be heard.

1982Y., 24 NY2d 174 ; Matter of Kemp v Fossella, 80 AD2d 897 ; Matter of Fasani v Rappaport, 30 AD2d 588 .) The decision of the State commissioner was based upon evidence adduced at a statutory fair hearing at which all interested parties were accorded an opportunity to be heard.

1982Y., 24 NY2d 174 ; Matter of Kemp v Fossella, 80 AD2d 897 ; Matter of Fasani v Rappaport, 30 AD2d 588 .) The decision of the State commissioner was based upon evidence adduced at a statutory fair hearing at which all interested parties were accorded an opportunity to be heard.

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981By order dated January 29,1979 this court granted the petition to the extent of annulling the determination and remitting the matter to the State commissioner for further proceedings (Matter of Hairston v Toia, 67 AD2d 730 ).

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981(See Santiago v Blum, 75 AD2d 596 ; Matter of Gutierrez v Blum, 73 AD2d 690 ; Matter of La Valle v Blum, 67 AD2d 708 ; Matter of McIver v Berger, 55 AD2d 606 ; Matter of Halley v Lavine, 47 AD2d 945 ; Cruz v Lavine, 45 AD2d 720 ; see, also, Matter of Sullivan v Buscaglia, 75 AD2d 990 ; Matter of Couball v Staszak, 70 AD2d 1027 ; Matter of Anderson v Toia, 59 AD2d 1024 ; cf. Matter of Rickert v Blum, 74 AD2d 846 ; Matter of Robinson v Blum, 73 AD2d 691 . ) 1 Thus, 18 NYCRR 358.18 (a), to the extent that it defines a full record of a statutory fair hearing as including “ [t]he transcript or reco

1981In Matter of Bryant v D’Elia ( 77 AD2d 590, 594 ) we held that “Petitioner is entitled to retroactive [shelter] benefits only if present payment of those benefits will result in the mortgagee’s forbearance from prosecuting its foreclosure action so as to provide petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to bring her mortgage payments current.” Since, as petitioner concedes, her mortgage has now been foreclosed, and the property sold, she is not entitled to retroactive benefits.

1981Therefore, since petitioner is no longer aggrieved, she lacks standing to challenge the validity of the policies of a government agency (see Matter of Donohue v Cornelius, 17 NY2d 390 ; Matter of Abrams v New York City Tr.