(DOWNLOAD) "Matter Maria Kantanas v. George K. Wyman" by Supreme Court of New York * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Maria Kantanas v. George K. Wyman
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 22, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Petitioner has been the recipient of public assistance in the form of Aid to Dependent Children since February of 1970. She
did not receive the full amount allowable for such assistance because of a determination by the local agency that her husband
was contributing $20 a week for her support. After a fair hearing, held pursuant to a letter request dated August 10, 1970,
respondent determined that deductions in the amount of the husband's alleged contributions were wrongfully taken prior to
June 26, 1970, the date upon which respondent found that the husband's contributions actually commenced. However, respondent
ruled that any deductions made prior to June 12, 1970 were not a proper subject of review because they were made more than
60 days prior to the request for a fair hearing. Respondent's determination was made in spite of the fact that no evidence
was presented that petitioner was ever notified of the decision to make the deductions. In our opinion, respondent's application
of the Statute of Limitations was erroneous. Rule 84.5 of the Rules of the Board of Social Welfare (18 NYCRR 84.5) states
that a request for a fair hearing must be made within 60 days after the action complained of has taken place. However, the
rule immediately preceding, rule 84.4, requires the social service official to notify a recipient in writing of his right
to a fair hearing whenever the official makes any decision adversely affecting the recipient's receipt of assistance or the
amount thereof. Clearly, then, the Statute of Limitations cannot conceivably start to run until the recipient is apprised
in writing of the adverse decision made by the social service official. The construction adopted by respondent is patently
inequitable and violative of the due process which must be accorded to recipients (cf. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254). Since
respondent did not establish his burden of proving by substantial evidence that written notice of the deductions had been
given to petitioner, the latter is entitled to reimbursement for all deductions made prior to June 12, 1970. Disposition Determination, insofar as it is before this court for review, is annulled, on the law, without costs, and respondent
is directed to require reimbursement to be made to petitioner in the amount of the deductions made prior to June 12, 1970.