Opinion
1118 TP 20-01235
02-04-2022
In the Matter of Calvin A. HALL, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of Josephine Hall, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Howard A. ZUCKER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health, Samuel D. Roberts, Commissioner, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and Stacy Alvord, Commissioner, Oswego County Department of Social Services, Respondents.
YANG-PATYI LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOSEPHINE YANG-PATYI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS HOWARD A. ZUCKER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE. RICHARD C. MITCHELL, COUNTY ATTORNEY, OSWEGO, FOR RESPONDENT STACY ALVORD, COMMISSIONER, OSWEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
YANG-PATYI LAW FIRM, PLLC, SYRACUSE (JOSEPHINE YANG-PATYI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS HOWARD A. ZUCKER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE.
RICHARD C. MITCHELL, COUNTY ATTORNEY, OSWEGO, FOR RESPONDENT STACY ALVORD, COMMISSIONER, OSWEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the amended determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner, as voluntary administrator of the estate of Josephine Hall (decedent), commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the amended determination of the New York State Department of Health (respondent) denying, after a fair hearing, an application for Medicaid benefits on behalf of decedent. Petitioner challenges respondent's conclusion that decedent did not qualify for a hardship waiver of the determination that she was ineligible for medical assistance (MA) because her husband transferred assets for less than fair market value within the 60-month look-back period. We conclude that respondent's "resolution [is] supported by substantial evidence upon the whole record" ( 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights , 45 N.Y.2d 176, 181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ), and we therefore confirm the amended determination.
"In determining the MA eligibility of an institutionalized individual, any transfer of assets for less than fair market value made by the individual or the individual's spouse within or after the look-back period will render the individual ineligible for nursing facility services" ( 18 NYCRR 360-4.4 [c] [2] [ii]). An exception applies where it is determined that the denial of eligibility will result in an undue hardship which, as relevant here, requires a demonstration that "the institutionalized individual is unable to obtain appropriate medical care without the provision of MA ... [and that,] despite his or her best efforts, the institutionalized individual or the individual's spouse is unable to have the transferred asset returned or to receive fair market value for the asset. Best efforts include cooperating, as deemed appropriate by the commissioner of the social services district, in efforts to seek the return of the asset" ( 18 NYCRR 360-4.4 [c] [2] [iii] [e] [2]-[3]).
Here, substantial evidence supports respondent's conclusion that there was no indication that decedent would be unable to obtain appropriate medical care if she did not receive MA (see Matter of Weiss v. Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs. , 121 A.D.3d 703, 705, 993 N.Y.S.2d 368 [2d Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Conners v. Berlin , 105 A.D.3d 1208, 1210-1211, 964 N.Y.S.2d 680 [3d Dept. 2013] ; see also Matter of Delaware Operations Assoc. LLC v. New York State Dept. of Health , 187 A.D.3d 1560, 1562, 132 N.Y.S.3d 489 [4th Dept. 2020] ). With respect to decedent's alleged inability to have the transferred assets returned, respondent concluded that the evidence presented in support of that claim was not credible, and " ‘[i]ssues of witness credibility are ... for the administrative agency to resolve in the exercise of its exclusive fact-finding authority’ " ( Matter of Hall v. Shah , 100 A.D.3d 1357, 1360, 953 N.Y.S.2d 758 [4th Dept. 2012] ).