From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York Council for Excep. People v. Pataki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 5, 1995
220 A.D.2d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 5, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).


The lack of merit to plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to continued transitional care funding is demonstrated by the plain words of Social Services Law article 8-B, which provides that localities such as the defendant City "may" provide the funding that plaintiffs seek herein (Social Services Law § 466 [2]) and that defendant State's responsibility prior to 1999 is "reimbursement" for 60% of the localities' expenditures (ibid.), and of Laws of 1994 (ch 600, § 16), which provides that the statute shall not be "deemed or construed to create any right, interest or entitlement for any individual to receive mental hygiene, education or social services funds or services, or placement in a mental hygiene facility, or any other right, interest or entitlement to services, funds or placement".

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

New York Council for Excep. People v. Pataki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 5, 1995
220 A.D.2d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

New York Council for Excep. People v. Pataki

Case Details

Full title:NEW YORK COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE et al., Appellants, v. GEORGE E…

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

Date published: Oct 5, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 531

Citing Cases

Brooks v. Pataki

Id. In October, her decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department, ___ A.D.2d ___, 632 N…

Suffolk Parents of Hdcp. Adults v. Wingate

The Brooks plaintiffs, however, first sued the City and the State in the New York State courts. The state…