154 A.D.2d 683 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1989
— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services dated March 6, 1987, made after statutory fair hearing, which affirmed, in part, a determination of the local agency to reduce the petitioner’s grant of public assistance in the category of Aid to Families with Dependent Children in order to recoup overpayments.
Adjudged that the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, on the law, with one bill of costs, and matter is remitted to the Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Social Services for a new determination consistent herewith.
At the hearing, the petitioner testified that the amount of her monthly grant is $878 per month, and after making her monthly rent payment of $750, all that remains for her to support her five children is $128. There is no indication in the record that prior to its determination, the local agency made any attempt to determine whether the petitioner was eligible to receive another type of grant which could have been applied toward utility payments (see, Social Services Law § 131-s [3] [c]). The decision after a fair hearing dated March 6, 1987 affirmed, in part, the determination of the local agency, finding that recoupment at the rate of 5% of household need was in fact proper.
We agree with the petitioner that the respondents were in violation of New York Social Services Law § 131-s when they directed recoupment without first determining whether the petitioner was eligible for one of the grants enumerated in Social Services Law § 131-s (3) (c). This provision states: "Payments made for recipients of public assistance pursuant to this subdivision shall be deemed to be advance allowances subject to recoupment in accordance with department regulations. In no event may any part of such payment subject to recoupment be made unless the social services official first determines under the particular circumstances that the recipient is not entitled, at the time of requesting such payment, to a
Here, the respondents concede that no such finding was made with respect to the petitioner. Accordingly, the determination under review was made in direct contravention of the statute, and was incorrect. The case is remitted to the local agency to make a new determination.
In light of the fact that the petitioner did not establish the existence of any civil rights claim (see, 42 USC § 1983), she is not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
In view of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the other issues raised by petitioner. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.