Opinion
May 4, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied her request for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The petitioner's cause of action, "essentially to compel prompt compliance with a decision after a hearing, was not a bona fide civil rights cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983" (Matter of Ferraro v. Perales, 166 A.D.2d 443, 444; Matter of Middleton v. Perales, 160 A.D.2d 800, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 174; Matter of Rashid v. Perales, 156 A.D.2d 692; Matter of Rozier v. Perales, 149 A.D.2d 710; Matter of Gelin v. Perales, 149 A.D.2d 593).
The recent decision of the Court of Appeals in Matter of Thomasel v. Perales ( 78 N.Y.2d 561) does not compel a different result. In that case, the Court of Appeals held that the petitioner therein was entitled to counsel fees since her "Federal" claim, i.e., that the respondents had improperly reduced her benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program pending an administrative hearing, was not "`wholly unsubstantial', `obviously frivolous' or `obviously without merit'" (Matter of Thomasel v. Perales, supra, at 569). No such claim was asserted in the underlying CPLR article 78 proceeding herein, and the application for counsel fees was properly denied. Mangano, P.J., Miller, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.