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.
Matter of Lisa KOLODZIEJCZYK and Nate Rotella, Petitioners, v. Brian J. WING, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and David Sutkowy, as Commissioner of Onondaga County Department of Social Services, Respondents.
Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination, following a fair hearing, that their household was not eligible for public assistance benefits or food stamps because Nate Rotella (petitioner) was listed with his mother as a joint owner of a certificate of deposit in the amount of $20,000. At the fair hearing, Onondaga County Department of Social Services introduced only the bank account statement listing petitioner and his mother as joint owners of the account. The testimony of petitioner and his mother, however, established that all of the money in the account belonged to petitioner's mother, that she opened the account herself for her own use and that she intended to confer upon her son only the right of survivorship but not a present beneficial interest in the funds. By the time the hearing was held, petitioner's mother had closed that account and opened another account in her name alone. That uncontradicted evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption of joint ownership in Banking Law § 675(b) and established that the funds were not actually available to petitioner (see, Wacikowski v. Wacikowski, 93 A.D.2d 885, 461 N.Y.S.2d 888, lv. denied 60 N.Y.2d 553, 467 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 454 N.E.2d 941; Matter of Radano v. Blum, 89 A.D.2d 858, 453 N.Y.S.2d 38). We therefore grant the petition and annul the determination that petitioners' household possessed available resources in excess of the statutory minimum exemption.
Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted.
MEMORANDUM:
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: May 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)