From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Smith v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

TP 03-01068.

November 21, 2003.

Cplr article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Fahey, J.), entered May 13, 2003 seeking to vacate a determination disqualifying petitioner from receiving food stamps benefits.

Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc., Buffalo (Elizabeth A. White of Counsel), for Petitioner.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Julie M. Sheridan of Counsel), for Respondent Brian J. Wing, As Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

Before: Present: Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski, and Lawton, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby Ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to vacate the determination disqualifying her from receiving food stamp benefits for a period of one year on the ground that, when she applied for recertification, she failed to disclose a mutual fund account opened in the name of her five-year-old daughter under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (EPTL 7-6.1 et seq.). Had the account been disclosed, petitioner would have been ineligible to receive food stamp benefits during the period from June 1999 through October 1999 because the financial resources available to her during that period exceeded $2,000.

We conclude that the determination that petitioner intentionally failed to disclose the account is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Williams v. Perales, 156 A.D.2d 697; Matter of Velasquez v. Perales, 151 A.D.2d 766, 767). It was established at the administrative hearing underlying the determination that petitioner, knowing she was required to disclose the financial resources of everyone living with her, disclosed her own financial resources but not those of her daughter. Contrary to the contention of petitioner, it is readily inferable therefrom that she acted intentionally ( see People v. Stumbrice, 194 A.D.2d 931, 934, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 727; see also People v. Smith, 300 A.D.2d 1145). The testimony of petitioner that she did not intentionally conceal the account presented a credibility issue for respondent Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (State Commissioner) to resolve ( see Matter of Czerwiak v. Wing, 245 A.D.2d 1098). The State Commissioner's "decision not to credit her self-serving [testimony] was rational and therefore not arbitrary or capricious" ( Velasquez, 151 A.D.2d at 767). We reject petitioner's further contention that the State Commissioner applied the wrong standard of proof ( see 18 NYCRR 359.7 [f] [1]).


Summaries of

Matter of Smith v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Matter of Smith v. Wing

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF MARY CUDNEY SMITH, Petitioner, v. BRIAN J. WING, AS COMMISSIONER…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 933 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 751