Matter of Hawkins v Berlin
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Hawkins v Berlin 2012 NY Slip Op 32922(U) November 7, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 400782/12 Judge: Donna M. Mills Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNEDON 1211012012%P'y'' [* 1] i*'?.!j; ; .. [* 2] -against- Index No. 400782112 ELIZABETH BERLIN, as Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et ai., Respondents. r_r__ _l-l_l______________________r_lll_-------------------------- X DONNA MILLS, M. J.: This special proceeding is brought pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR to appeal I a determination dated April 20, 2012 by Respondent Elizabeth Berlin, as Executive Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability . \ Assistance ( State Respondent or OTDA ) of a second level desk review of a determination by Respondent Robert Doar ( HRA ) regarding distribution of child support payments to petitioner Crystal Hawkins. Petitioner seeks to compel Respondent HRA to distribute child support payments collected on behalf of her son Michael Jackson for the period from September 2005 through January, 2007 to the petitioner. HRA and State Respondent claim that the Amended Petition should be dismissed because their determinations were based on rational interpretations of the law. BACKGROUND In December 1989, petitioner received a grant of Public Assistance ( PA ). After her son Michael was born, May 8, 1990, he was added to the budget and the HRA obtained an assignment of petitioner s right to child support from his father. When, her second son, Jarred Smith, was born March 24, 2000, he was also added to the public [* 3] ~ assistance budget, and the city agency obtained an assignment of petitioner s right to support from Jarred s father. The assignment HRA held with regard to child support , .paid on Michael s behalf was made prior to October I 2009, the date on which the mandatory limited assignment under the. Federal Deficit Reduction Act went into effect in New York. Based on assignments of petitioner s right to child support for each of her sans, the city agency obtained orders of support requiring their fathers to pay child support. During the period that the city agency provided public assistance for petitioner and her two sons, it collected their child support payments and retained the payments (except for a pass through payment mandated by federal and state4aw) to reimburse. 1 respondents for the cash assistance paid to the entire family. In June, 2001, after petitioner stopped receiving child support for Michael, she requested a First Level Desk Review from HRA to obtain an accounting for the cumulative excess support payments for Michael. In her request she asked that cumulative excess support payments for the period from September 2005 to August 201 1 be reviewed. \ On August 4 , 201I , HRA issued a first-level desk review determination, dated August 4, 201 1 ( the First-Level Disk Review Determination ). Given that a cumulative excess support payment was requested, HRA reviewed all PA and child support records for the life of the case. .HRA determined that petitioner was entitled to an additronal pass-through payment of $100, but no additional child support collections were due and owing to her. On August 19, 201 1, petitioner s counsel wrote to OTDA s Division of Child -2- [* 4] -n 4 upport Enforcement, requesting a second-level desk review of child support payments for the period from September 2005 through August 201 I. OTDA sent petitioner and her counsel a second-level desk review dgtwmination, dated April 20, 2012. It confirmed the First-Level Desk Review Determination and found that petitioner was not entitled to any additional child support cdlections. Petitioner filed and served the initial petition, dated April 5, 2012 commencing < the instant article 78 proceeding. Than, petitioner filed the Amended Petition, dated May 23, 2012, to challenge the Second-Level Disk Review Determination. DISCUSSION An Article 78 proceeding is a special proceeding. It may be summarily determined upon the pleadings, papers, and admissions to the extent that no triable issues of fact are raised. (CPLR 409 [b]; 7801, 7804 [h].) Thus, much like a motion fo; summary judgment, the court should decide the issues raised on the papers presented , and grant judgment for the prevailing party, unless there is an issue of fact requiring a trial. (CPLR 7804 [h]; Matter of York v McGuire, 99 AD2d 1023 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 760 [I 9841). The applicable standard of review is whether the administrative decision was: (1) I made in violation of lawful procedure; (2) affected by an error of law; or (3) arbitrary or, capricious or an abuse of discretion, including whether the penalty imposed was an abuse of discretion (CPLR 7803 [3]). An agency abuses its exercise of discretion if its administrative orders lack a rational basis. [Tlhe proper test is whether there is a rational basis for the administrative orders, the review not being of determinations made after quasi-judicial hearings required by statute or law (Matter of Pel1 v Board of Educ. -3- [* 5] Of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). The parties are not in dispute that under SSL 5 158(5), petitioner s rights to child support are permanently assigned to the state and local social services district as long as the support payments received do not exceed the total amount of assistance paid to the family as of the date the family no longer receives public assistance. Applying this law, this Court after reviewing the accounting done and provided to the petitioner in support of both the First and Second-Level Desk Review Determinations finds that the decisions wer& neither arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous. The petitioner s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly it is ADJUDGED that the petition is denied; and it is further ADJUDGED that the proceeding is disrnissed. ENTER: - J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
