Matter of Gonzalez v State of N.Y. Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Matter of Gonzalez v State of New York Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance 2011 NY Slip Op 08219 Decided on November 15, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 15, 2011
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman, Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
6048 250695/10

[*1]In re Gloria Gonzalez, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

State of New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Respondent-Appellant.




Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Ana P.
Zybert of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered June 16, 2010, which granted the petition seeking to annul respondent's decision after fair hearing, which upheld a determination of the New York City Human Resources Administration to discontinue petitioner's public assistance benefits, unanimously vacated, the petition treated as one transferred to this Court for de novo review, and upon such review, the challenged determination confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed, without costs.

The subject petition raised an issue of substantial evidence and thus the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g) (see e.g. Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc., 27 AD3d 388 [2006]). Accordingly, we will "treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred" (Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio, 180 AD2d 590, 591 [1992]).

The determination to discontinue petitioner's public assistance benefits after she failed to return the required eligibility questionnaire is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443—444 [1987]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: NOVEMBER 15, 2011

CLERK