Opinion
April 6, 1998
There is substantial evidence to support the determination by the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services (hereinafter the agency) that authorization for the payment of daily taxi service to the petitioner's methadone clinic was not "essential" ( see, Social Services Law § 365-a [j]; 18 NYCRR 505.10 [a]) in light of the availability of public bus service.
At the fair hearing, the agency was presented with a choice between conflicting medical reports regarding whether the petitioner's condition necessitated the use of taxi service, as opposed to public bus service, and "it is not the province of the court to substitute its judgment unless the agency's determination is unreasonable or without a basis in law" ( Matter of Denise R. v. Lavine, 39 N.Y.2d 279, 283; see also, Matter of Bentley v. Perales, 103 A.D.2d 1005). The agency's reliance on the opinion of the consulting physician was reasonable under the circumstances. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the agency was not required to accept the opinion of the treating physician as controlling on this issue ( see, e.g., Kuppersmith v. Dowling, 246 A.D.2d 473; cf., Matter of Compo v. Perales, 76 N.Y.2d 948).
O'Brien, J.P., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.