Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner, as a provider of foster care rather than a recipient thereof, does not have standing to seek administrative review of the adequacy of foster care payments that were made on behalf of children who no longer reside with her (see, Matter of Holton v Sabol, 221 A.D.2d 341; Matter of Tobias v Bane, 218 A.D.2d 743; Matter of Burgess v Sabol, 218 A.D.2d 736). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding.
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Social Services Law § 398-a; Matter of Babicz v Kaplan, 180 A.D.2d 86, 90; Matter of Costello v Perales, 167 A.D.2d 602, 603; New York State Council of Voluntary Child Care Agencies, v Blum, 105 Misc.2d 154, 156). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, JJ., concur.