Opinion
TP 03-02569.
Decided June 14, 2004.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [William R. Roy, J.], entered November 14, 2003) to review a determination of respondent New York State Department of Health. The determination confirmed the denial of petitioner's request for Medicaid benefits for petitioner's mother.
HARRIS PANELS, SYRACUSE (JOHN M. MURPHY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (VICTOR PALADINO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS NEW YORK OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND STATE OF NEW YORK.
Before: PRESENT: GREEN, J.P., PINE, SCUDDER, MARTOCHE, AND HAYES, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the amended petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination confirming the decision denying her request for Medicaid benefits for her mother following a fair hearing. The determination is based on the failure of petitioner to provide requested documentation concerning three bank accounts and her father's estate and, contrary to petitioner's contention, the determination is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Rossman v. Novella, 300 A.D.2d 483; Green Manor Assoc. v. Beaudoin, 285 A.D.2d 807, 809; Matter of Frohlinger v. DeBuono, 278 A.D.2d 323, 324). Even accepting as true the assertion of petitioner that she had little knowledge of her parents' finances, we nevertheless conclude that petitioner is not thereby relieved of her obligation to provide the requested documentation ( see Matter of Chase v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 252 A.D.2d 612, 613-614, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 813). Finally, although we may properly take judicial notice of the fact that petitioner's subsequent request for Medicaid benefits was also denied ( see generally Matter of Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of Buffalo v. Munoz, 4 A.D.3d 879, 880), we conclude that the present proceeding is not rendered moot by that denial ( see 18 NYCRR 360-2.4).