Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Evansgreen1 sentence2015(People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 504 [2000], citing Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 15 [1976].) At the time of Judge Salinitro’s decision, Ms. L. had lost an administrative fair hearing seeking the return of the children and had not yet had her article 78 petition adjudicated. | 1 | 1 |
Dondi v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2015(People v Evans, 94 NY2d 499, 504 [2000], citing Matter of Dondi v Jones, 40 NY2d 8, 15 [1976].) At the time of Judge Salinitro’s decision, Ms. L. had lost an administrative fair hearing seeking the return of the children and had not yet had her article 78 petition adjudicated. | 1 | 1 |
Kuppersmith v. Dowlinggreen2 sentences2010On May 26, 2006 an administrative fair hearing was conducted by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which is part of the DOH, the agency responsible for the administration and interpretation of Medicaid laws in New York (see Kuppersmith v Dowling, 93 NY2d 90, 97 [1999]). 2010On May 26, 2006 an administrative fair hearing was conducted by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which is part of the DOH, the agency responsible for the administration and interpretation of Medicaid laws in New York (see Kuppersmith v Dowling, 93 NY2d 90, 97 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomasel v. Perales
green
1 sentence1996On facts in all significant respects identical to those in Matter of Thomasel v Perales ( 78 NY2d 561, 567 ), respondent does not dispute that petitioner was a prevailing party on her 42 USC § 1983 claim for restoration of her full Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps benefits pending an administrative fair hearing. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
O'Rourke v. Kirby
green
1 sentence1996In O’Rourke (supra, at 14 ), the Court held that the proper procedure for reviewing an agency’s denial of consent for adoption is through an administrative fair hearing and a subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Schanbarger v. New York State Commissioner of Social Services
green
1 sentence1985Moreover, this court, in its prior decision ( 99 AD2d 621 , supra), effectively disposed of the issue of whether petitioner was improperly denied access to review and inspect every fair hearing decision. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People Ex Rel. Ninesling v. Nassau County Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence1981Ninesling v Nassau County Dept, of Social Servs., 46 NY2d 382, 386 ). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.