Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed

5 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Shook v. Lavine

    49 A.D.2d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 28 times
    In Matter of Shook v Lavine, (49 A.D.2d 238) and Matter of Wayman v Berger (52 A.D.2d 738) we held that the provisions of section 104-a Soc. Serv. of the Social Services Law and 18 NYCRR 352.23 may not be applied to deny AFDC benefits on the grounds that an applicant had made a transfer of property in order to be eligible for such assistance.

    Since petitioners have not raised the issue of whether the administrative determination is, on the entire record of the hearing, supported by substantial evidence, Special Term should have disposed of the legal issues raised in this proceeding (CPLR 7804, subd [g]; 7803, subd 4). However, even though transfer was improper, as the papers before this court are sufficient to enable the case to be disposed of, we should do so (CPLR 7804, subd [g]; Matter of Dumbleton v Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687).

  2. Matter of Turner v. Reed

    52 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)   Cited 2 times

    Petitioners have not, however, complied with the specific requirements of the statute providing for class actions (CPLR 902, eff Sept. 1, 1975; see Peterson v Berger, 84 Misc.2d 517). Moreover, in a matter of this sort, where there have been multiple hearings, we think that the principle of stare decisis, insofar as found applicable, will adequately protect all persons claimed to be similarly situated who are not parties hereto (see Matter of Rivera v Trimarco, 36 N.Y.2d 747); and class action relief should, therefore, not be accorded (see Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42; Matter of Dumbleton v Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687; Matter of Shook v Lavine, 49 A.D.2d 238).

  3. Matter of Little

    174 Misc. 2d 153 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, contends the executor, because Mrs. Little's inheritance was neither "easily liquidated" nor "within her control," it could not be considered an available resource until the time it was distributed to her. In support of that position, the executor cites Matter of Scrivani ( 116 Misc.2d 204), Matter of Dumbleton v. Reed ( 49 A.D.2d 687), and Matter of Simmons v. Van Alstyne ( 65 A.D.2d 869). In Scrivani, the conservator moved to renounce an inheritance to her charge in order to continue her charge's eligibility for government medical benefits.

  4. Glenville Gage Co. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

    95 Misc. 2d 648 (N.Y. Misc. 1978)   Cited 1 times

    It is this holding which petitioner is asking the court to review in this proceeding. Initially, the court may decide this matter since the findings of fact are undisputed and only a question of law is presented. (Matter of Dumbleton v Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687, mod on other grounds 40 N.Y.2d 586.) Section 198-c Lab. of the Labor Law provides: "any employer who is a party to an agreement to pay or provide benefits or wage supplements to employees * * * and who fails, neglects or refuses to pay the amount or amounts necessary to provide such benefits or furnish such supplements within thirty days after such payments are required to be made, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor * * * 2.

  5. Bonaccorso v. Toia

    91 Misc. 2d 614 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977)

    Only a question of law remains. (Matter of Dumbleton v Reed, 49 A.D.2d 687.) After due deliberation, having considered the arguments and papers submitted for and against the parties' respective positions, the court will grant petitioner's judgment pursuant to CPLR article 78.