From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Carnegie v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 1994
200 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 20, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).


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 U.S.C. § 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.


Summaries of

Matter of Carnegie v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 20, 1994
200 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Carnegie v. Perales

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AUDREY CARNEGIE, Appellant, v. CESAR A. PERALES, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 20, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 502 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 655

Citing Cases

Matter of Rodriguez v. Perales

77 determined to be due petitioner. While petitioner contends, and the IAS Court agreed, that under the…

In re Application of Catarine v. Wing

This Article 78 proceeding ensued. In denying the petition, the IAS court, relying upon this Court's decision…