Case Name: In the Matter of Scott Maione, Appellant, v. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-11-16
Citations: 144 A.D.3d 916
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Scott Maione, Appellant, v New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance et al., Respondents.
Judges: Chambers, J.R, Dickerson, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 916–916

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Scott Maione, Appellant, v New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance et al., Respondents.
[40 NYS3d 782]—

Opinion:
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, dated November 7, 2013, which, after a fair hearing, affirmed a determination of the Rockland County Department of Social Services denying the petitioner's application for reimbursement of the premiums toward his private health insurance.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
Following a fair hearing, the New York State Department of Health (hereinafter the respondent) affirmed the determination of the Rockland County Department of Social Services denying the petitioner's application for payment of the premiums towards his private health insurance on the ground that payment would not be cost effective. Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the record contains substantial evidence from which the respondent could rationally conclude that the payment of the private health insurance policy premiums would not be cost effective to it (see Matter of Collins v Amrhein, 144 AD2d 461 [1988]). To the extent the petition raises new claims that were not raised in the administrative hearing under review, such claims are not properly before this Court and have not been considered (see Matter of Myles v Doar, 24 AD3d 677, 678 [2005]). Thus, the application was properly denied.
Chambers, J.R, Dickerson, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.