Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Gussie SCHLOSSBERG, etc., Petitioner, For a Judgment, etc., v. Brian WING, etc., et al., Respondents.
Determination of respondent New York State Department of Health dated January 12, 2000, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed respondent New York City Department of Social Services' determination denying petitioner's application for 24-hour continuous split-shift care, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Marcy Friedman, J.], entered April 21, 2000), dismissed, without costs.
Respondents' determination to continue 24-hour sleep-in care, but to deny petitioner's request for 24-hour continuous split-shift care, is based on substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious (see, Curry v. Wing, 277 A.D.2d 37, 716 N.Y.S.2d 6, decided herewith). The agency's determination, resting as it does on its interpretation of its own regulations and the legislation under which it functions, is entitled to deference (see, Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 271 N.E.2d 528). Further, the applicable regulations do not require that the agency follow a treating physician's recommended amount of services (Kuppersmith v. Dowling, 93 N.Y.2d 90, 688 N.Y.S.2d 96, 710 N.E.2d 660). Although petitioner claims that she was not, prior to her fair hearing, given constitutionally adequate notice of the disputed determination, our review of respondents' Notice of Decision dated September 23, 1999 discloses that said Notice satisfactorily apprised petitioner of the legal burden she would face if she challenged the determination at a fair hearing.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 09, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)