From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garland v. Zucker

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 2023
213 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

No. 2020-01138 Index No. 9232/19

02-22-2023

In the Matter of Jessica Garland, petitioner, v. Howard Zucker, etc., respondent.

Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, White Plains, NY (Mary Grace Ferone of counsel), for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Judith N. Vale and Blair J. Greenwald of counsel), for respondent.


Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, White Plains, NY (Mary Grace Ferone of counsel), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Judith N. Vale and Blair J. Greenwald of counsel), for respondent.

VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.

DECISION & JUDGMENT

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Department of Health dated July 30, 2019. The determination, after a fair hearing pursuant to Social Services Law § 22, upheld a determination of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities dated March 27, 2018, denying the petitioner's application for services under the Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waiver program.

ADJUDGED that the determination dated July 30, 2019, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

In a determination dated March 27, 2018, the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (hereinafter the OPWDD) denied the petitioner's application for services under the Medicaid Home and Community Based Services Waiver (hereinafter HCBS Waiver) program on the ground that she failed to establish that she had a developmental disability as defined in Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03(22). In a determination dated July 30, 2019, made after a fair hearing pursuant to Social Services Law § 22, the New York State Department of Health (hereinafter the DOH) upheld the OPWDD's determination. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the DOH's determination. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).

"In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a fair hearing, the court must review the record, as a whole, to determine if the agency's decisions are supported by substantial evidence and are not affected by an error of law" (Matter of Anand v New York State Dept. of Health, 196 A.D.3d 563, 564 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mangels v Zucker, 168 A.D.3d 1060, 1061; Matter of Schaffer v Zucker, 165 A.D.3d 1266, 1267). "Substantial evidence means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (Matter of Anand v New York State Dept. of Health, 196 A.D.3d at 564; see Matter of Jason B. v Novello, 12 N.Y.3d 107, 114; Matter of Stanley B. v Shah, 103 A.D.3d 890). "'[T]he court[ ] may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists'" (Matter of Stanley B. v Shah, 103 A.D.3d at 890, quoting Matter of J. Scaramella Trucking v Martinez, 39 A.D.3d 858, 859; see Matter of Marine Holdings, LLC v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 31 N.Y.3d 1045, 1047). "The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility" (Matter of Mangels v Zucker, 168 A.D.3d at 1061; see Matter of Schaffer v Zucker, 165 A.D.3d at 1267).

Here, there is an adequate basis in the record for the DOH's finding that the petitioner did not have a developmental disability within the meaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 1.03(22), including, among other things, the petitioner's failure to present sufficient evidence that she had substantial adaptive behavior deficits during the developmental period or that she received a qualifying diagnosis. Accordingly, the DOH's determination to uphold the denial of the petitioner's application for HCBS Waiver services was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jason B. v Novello, 12 N.Y.3d at 114; Matter of Stanley B. v Shah, 103 A.D.3d at 890).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Garland v. Zucker

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 22, 2023
213 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Garland v. Zucker

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Jessica Garland, petitioner, v. Howard Zucker, etc.…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 22, 2023

Citations

213 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 1001
182 N.Y.S.3d 646