Court Opinion

ID: 5830636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 22:17:04.553645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:43:26.767085
License: Public Domain

The subject petition raised an issue of substantial evidence and thus the proceeding should have been transferred to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g) (see e.g. Matter of Verdell v Lincoln Amsterdam House, Inc., 27 AD3d 388 [2006]). Accordingly, we will “treat the substantial evidence issues de novo and decide all issues as if the proceeding had been properly transferred” (Matter of Jimenez v Popolizio, 180 AD2d 590, 591 [1992]).
The determination to discontinue petitioner’s public assistance benefits after she failed to return the required eligibility questionnaire is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.