From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Schachner v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 1994
203 A.D.2d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 5, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.).


Petitioners failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for the period in question sufficient to require the local social services agency to deviate from the standard "community spouse monthly income allowance". Pursuant to Social Services Law § 366-c (8) (b), the local agency is permitted to allocate more of the institutionalized spouse's income to the community spouse "[i]f either spouse establishes that the community spouse needs income above the level established by the social services district as the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, based upon exceptional circumstances which result in significant financial distress," and to "substitute an amount adequate to provide additional necessary income" (emphasis added). Significant financial distress is defined pursuant to 18 NYCRR 360-4.10 (a) (10) as "exceptional expenses which the community spouse cannot be expected to meet from the monthly maintenance needs allowance or from amounts held in resources * * * and may include but are not limited to: recurring or extraordinary noncovered medical expenses; amounts to preserve, maintain or make major repairs on the homestead; and amounts necessary to preserve an income-producing asset."

A statute or regulation which enumerates several examples of a class but also incorporates language indicating that there may be other examples shall be read to mean other examples of a quality and likeness similar to the examples specifically enumerated (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 239 [b]; see, e.g., Barsh v Town of Union, 126 A.D.2d 311). In this case the enumerated examples pertain to things which may be deemed "necessaries". By contrast, under the common law it is well established that, absent special circumstances or voluntary agreement, the furnishing of a college education to a minor child is not a necessary expense for which a parent is obligated (see, Nolfo v Nolfo, 188 A.D.2d 451, 454-455). Accordingly, absent a legislative intent that such an expense be considered (cf., Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]), the Agency's finding that expenses for the private college education of petitioner's daughter were not "exceptional" expenses within the meaning of the statute was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

We have considered petitioners' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Schachner v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 5, 1994
203 A.D.2d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Schachner v. Perales

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ERWIN SCHACHNER et al., Appellants, v. CESAR PERALES, as…

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

Date published: Apr 5, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 241

Citing Cases

Matter of Schachner v. Perales

Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court took the view that the…

Matter of Schachner v. Perales

Decided September 27, 1994 Appeal from (1st Dept: 203 A.D.2d 21) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…