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 Gene BISHOP, Petitioner, For a Judgment, etc., v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent.
Determination of respondent New York State Department of Social Services, dated August 16, 1996, discontinuing petitioner's home relief, food stamp and medical assistance benefits, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by an order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Carol Arber, J.], entered January 17, 1997), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner willfully and without good cause failed to comply with Work Experience Program requirements. That petitioner was not given a job skills assessment or employability plan does not permit his unilateral refusal to participate in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program. We note that such an assessment and plan are not guaranteed to home relief recipients, but are based on available resources (see, Social Services Law § 335-a[1]; 18 NYCRR § 385.4[a][3][ii] ). Respondent's interpretation of its regulations is rational and thus will not be disturbed by the judiciary (see, Palmieri v. Cuomo, 170 A.D.2d 283, 284, 566 N.Y.S.2d 14, lv. denied 78 N.Y.2d 852, 573 N.Y.S.2d 465, 577 N.E.2d 1057). Nor is there any merit to petitioner's claim that respondent discontinued his benefits without considering the acceptability of a substitute. Respondent disallowed substitution of educational or professional training, such as petitioner's Legal Aid internship for the WEP assignment, and that determination is a discretionary one (Social Services Law § 164[7]; see, Matter of Shakhnovskaya v. Wing, 243 A.D.2d 259, 662 N.Y.S.2d 500), with which we will not interfere. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
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: January 15, 1998
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)