Opinion
267 18–01775
05-03-2019
In the Matter of Carol HILL, Agent Under Power of Attorney for Stewart Hill, Petitioner, v. Howard ZUCKER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Respondent.
THE MARRONE LAW FIRM, P.C., SYRACUSE (ANTHONY A. MARRONE, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE MARRONE LAW FIRM, P.C., SYRACUSE (ANTHONY A. MARRONE, II, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (PATRICK A. WOODS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIt is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
We agree with respondent that his denial of petitioner's application for Medicaid benefits based on petitioner's failure to submit required documentation is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Schaffer v. Zucker, 165 A.D.3d 1266, 1267, 85 N.Y.S.3d 556 [2d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Stevens v. Onondaga County Dept. of Social Servs., 8 A.D.3d 995, 996, 778 N.Y.S.2d 597 [4th Dept. 2004] ). We reject petitioner's contention that the determination was arbitrary and capricious because she submitted all outstanding documents before the fair hearing (cf. Matter of Taylor v. Bane, 199 A.D.2d 1071, 1071, 606 N.Y.S.2d 112 [4th Dept. 1993] ). Petitioner had numerous opportunities to submit the outstanding documentation, unlike the petitioner in Taylor . Under the circumstances, DSS appropriately treated petitioner's late submissions as a reapplication for benefits, and respondent did not act arbitrarily in affirming DSS's September 12, 2017 denial of the initial application.
Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the determination that she failed to show good cause for failing to submit the required documents before the deadline is supported by substantial evidence (see Schaffer, 165 A.D.3d at 1267, 85 N.Y.S.3d 556 ; Matter of Medford Multicare Ctr. v. Zucker, 161 A.D.3d 1160, 1162, 77 N.Y.S.3d 524 [2d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Pagnani v. Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 152 A.D.3d 696, 696, 55 N.Y.S.3d 912 [2d Dept. 2017] ). Petitioner failed to meet her burden of "notifying the social services district of the reasons for failing to comply with an eligibility requirement and ... furnishing evidence to support any claim of good cause" ( 18 NYCRR 351.26 [b]; see 18 NYCRR 351.26 [a][1], [3] ).
Finally, petitioner's contention that DSS failed to conduct a collateral investigation (see 18 NYCRR 360–2.3 [a][3] ) is improperly raised for the first time in her petition (see Matter of Peckham v. Calogero , 12 N.Y.3d 424, 430, 883 N.Y.S.2d 751, 911 N.E.2d 813 [2009] ; Matter of Yarbough v. Franco , 95 N.Y.2d 342, 347, 717 N.Y.S.2d 79, 740 N.E.2d 224 [2000] ; Matter of Notman v. New York State Dept. of Health , 162 A.D.3d 1704, 1705, 80 N.Y.S.3d 763 [4th Dept. 2018] ). Petitioner's failure to raise that issue at the fair hearing deprived "the administrative agency of the opportunity to prepare a record reflective of its expertise and judgment" with regard to that issue and, as a result, petitioner has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to that issue ( Yarbough , 95 N.Y.2d at 347, 717 N.Y.S.2d 79, 740 N.E.2d 224 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Notman , 162 A.D.3d at 1705, 80 N.Y.S.3d 763 ; see generally Social Services Law § 22[1], [5] ). We have no discretionary authority to review petitioner's contention (see Matter of J.C. Smith, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Economic Dev. , 163 A.D.3d 1517, 1520, 83 N.Y.S.3d 770 [4th Dept. 2018], lv. denied 32 N.Y.3d 1191, 95 N.Y.S.3d 144, 119 N.E.3d 784 [2019] ; see generally Matter of Khan v. New York State Dept. of Health , 96 N.Y.2d 879, 880, 730 N.Y.S.2d 783, 756 N.E.2d 71 [2001] ).