CAPRI, MARY v. DAINES, M.D., RICHARD F. , 935 N.Y.2d 761 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •         SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    1326
    TP 11-01443
    PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
    IN THE MATTER OF PATRICK L. CAPRI, AS
    ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARY CAPRI,
    DECEASED, PETITIONER,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    RICHARD F. DAINES, M.D., COMMISSIONER, NEW
    YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, LUCILLE A.
    SOLDATO, COMMISSIONER, ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
    OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT
    OF SOCIAL SERVICES, RESPONDENTS.
    KOWALCZYK, DEERY, HILTON & BROADBENT, LLP, UTICA (ROBERT K. HILTON,
    III, OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.
    ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (KATHLEEN M. TREASURE
    OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT RICHARD F. DAINES, M.D., COMMISSIONER, NEW
    YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
    JOHN A. HERBOWY, UTICA, FOR RESPONDENTS LUCILLE A. SOLDATO,
    COMMISSIONER, ONEIDA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, AND ONEIDA
    COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.
    Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the
    Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial
    Department by order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County [Anthony F.
    Shaheen, J.], entered June 6, 2011) to review a determination of
    respondent Richard F. Daines, M.D., Commissioner, New York State
    Department of Health. The determination found after a fair hearing
    that petitioner was currently ineligible for medical assistance
    benefits.
    It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously
    confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
    Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner
    contends, as administrator of the estate of his mother (decedent),
    that the determination of Richard F. Daines, M.D., Commissioner, New
    York State Department of Health (respondent) is not supported by
    substantial evidence. Respondent upheld the determination of
    respondents Lucille A. Soldato, Commissioner, Oneida County Department
    of Social Services, and Oneida County Department of Social Services
    (hereafter, DSS respondents) that decedent made certain uncompensated
    transfers prior to her admission in a skilled nursing facility. We
    -2-                        1326
    TP 11-01443
    reject petitioner’s contention.
    “In reviewing a Medicaid eligibility determination made after a
    fair hearing, ‘the court must review the record, as a whole, to
    determine if the [respondent’s] decisions are supported by substantial
    evidence and are not affected by an error of law’ ” (Matter of Barbato
    v New York State Dept. of Health, 65 AD3d 821, 822-823, lv denied 13
    NY3d 712). Decedent presented evidence at the fair hearing that she
    and petitioner had a joint checking account and that certain
    expenditures, primarily for home improvement and repair of
    petitioner’s home, where decedent also lived, were paid from that
    account. In addition, decedent alleged that cash withdrawals used for
    food, clothing and medicine were made from the joint account.
    Respondent determined that the transfers related to petitioner’s home
    were not for the benefit of decedent inasmuch as she did not have an
    interest in the home. He further determined that the DSS respondents
    were unable to verify how cash withdrawals were expended. With
    respect to two transfers from the joint account to decedent’s
    granddaughters, respondent determined that the lack of a history of
    gift giving, as well as decedent’s advanced age and poor health,
    supported a determination that the transfers were not made
    “exclusively for a purpose other than to qualify for medical
    assistance” (Social Services Law § 366 [5] [d] [3] [iii] [B]; see
    Matter of Gabrynowicz v New York State Dept. of Health, 37 AD3d 464,
    465-466). We conclude that respondent’s determination that the
    transfers from the joint account were made for less than fair market
    value is supported by substantial evidence (see Gabrynowicz, 37 AD3d
    at 465; see generally Barbato, 65 AD3d at 822-823), i.e., “such
    relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support
    a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div.
    of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; see Matter of Ridge Rd. Fire Dist.
    v Schiano, 16 NY3d 494, 499).
    Entered:   December 23, 2011                   Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: TP 11-01443

Citation Numbers: 90 A.D.3d 1530, 935 N.Y.2d 761, 935 NYS2d 761

Filed Date: 12/23/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023