IN RE: BRETT RAWLS (2025)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: BRETT RAWLS, PETITIONER, v. BARBARA GUINN, AS ACTING COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, RESPONDENT.

762 Decided: November 21, 2025

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., LINDLEY, MONTOUR, NOWAK, AND KEANE, JJ.

NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL SERVICES, INC., BUFFALO (LARRY E. WATERS, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER. LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (BEEZLY J. KIERNAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g), petitioner seeks to annul the determination of respondent that, inter alia, affirmed the decision of a social services agency, following an administrative disqualification hearing (see 18 NYCRR 359.7), finding that petitioner received an overpayment of public assistance and an overissuance of Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits as a result of an intentional program violation.

We conclude that substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that the agency established by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner committed an intentional program violation in obtaining public assistance payments and SNAP benefits (see 18 NYCRR 359.3; Matter of Smith v Wing, 1 AD3d 933, 933-934 [4th Dept 2003]; Matter of Williams v Perales, 156 AD2d 697, 697-698 [2d Dept 1989]; Matter of Velasquez v Perales, 151 AD2d 766, 767 [2d Dept 1989]). The agency established at the hearing that petitioner, knowing he was required to disclose any employment and income, disclosed income from one employer but failed to disclose income from another employer (see Smith, 1 AD3d at 934; Velasquez, 151 AD2d at 767). Contrary to petitioner's contention, it is readily inferable from his conduct that he acted intentionally (see Smith, 1 AD3d at 934). The testimony of petitioner that he did not intentionally conceal his additional employment and income presented a credibility issue for respondent to resolve (see id.).

Finally, contrary to petitioner's further contention, we conclude that he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (CPLR art 86) inasmuch as he is not a prevailing party (see CPLR 8601 [a]; 8602 [f]; see generally Matter of Glosenger v Perales, 83 NY2d 984, 989 [1994]).

Entered: November 21, 2025

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network