1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.2d
  4. 89 N.Y.2d
  5. 89 N.Y.2d 1 (1996)
 

MATTER OF BAEZ v. BANE

89 N.Y.2d 1 (1996)

674 N.E.2d 268

651 N.Y.S.2d 338

In the Matter of Jose Baez, Respondent-Appellant, v. Mary Jo Bane, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents. In the Matter of Cesar Cespedes, Respondent-Appellant, v. Mary Jo Bane, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents. In the Matter of Dorothy Linton, Respondent-Appellant, v. Michael J. Dowling, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents. In the Matter of Virgen Ayala, Respondent-Appellant, v. Michael J. Dowling, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided October 10, 1996.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Paul A. Crotty, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Alan G. Krams, Kristin M. Helmers and Pamela Seider Dolgow of counsel), for Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services, appellant-respondent in the four above-entitled proceedings.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City (Steven M. Connolly, Victoria A. Graffeo and Ronald P. Younkins of counsel), for Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, appellant-respondent in the four above-entitled proceedings.

Jill Ann Boskey, Wayne G. Hawley, New York City, Susan Bondurant, Arnold Cohen, Long Island City, Cherie Howard and Cherie Gaines, Brooklyn, for respondents-appellants in the four above-entitled proceedings.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SIMONS, TITONE, SMITH, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur.

BELLACOSA, J.

The common question in these appeals is whether appellants, New York City and New York State Department of Social Services, forfeit all reimbursement with respect to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) retroactive benefit checks because of administrative delays of one to seven days, beyond the statutorily prescribed 10-day period, in forwarding excess benefit refunds to recipients. In the four cases...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases