From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Daniell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 2010
74 A.D.3d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-07152.

June 15, 2010.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State of New York Department of Health dated July 31, 2008, which, after a fair hearing, upheld a determination of the Department of Social Services of the County of Suffolk dated February 1, 2007, denying the application of the petitioner's decedent for medical assistance benefits.

Miller Milone, P.C. (Tammy Lawlor of counsel), Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (William G. Holst of counsel), for respondent.

Janet Demarzo. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael Belohlavek and Sudarsana Srinivasan of counsel), for respondent Richard F. Daines.

Before: Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ.


Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, with one bill of costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Janet DeMarzo, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the County of Suffolk, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The evidence presented at the fair hearing established that, as a result of having to wait for letters of administration, the petitioner failed to meet the deadline set by the Department of Social Services of the County of Suffolk (hereinafter DSS) for the production of the necessary documentation to verify the decedent's eligibility for medical assistance benefits for the approximate 41/2-month period of hospitalization prior to his death. However, prior to the time of the fair hearing, the petitioner submitted the requested documentation. Under the particular circumstances of this case, there was an insufficient basis for the determination of the State of New York Department of Health (hereinafter DOH) upholding DSS's denial of benefits ( see Matter of Estate of Eichna v Demarzo, 52 AD3d 513; Matter of Taylor v Bane, 199 AD2d 1071; Matter of Segall v D'Elia, 92 AD2d 897). DOH should have remitted the matter to DSS for a new determination based on the documentation submitted.


Summaries of

In re Daniell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 15, 2010
74 A.D.3d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Daniell

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ESTATE OF KEVIN DANIELL, Appellant, v. JANET DEMARZO et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 15, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 1063 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5392
902 N.Y.S.2d 388

Citing Cases

Bosco v. McGuire

The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating eligibility” ( Matter of Loiacono v. Demarzo, 72 A.D.3d 969,…