You are here: / / TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION...

TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED.

The Third Department, reversing the Department of Health, determined petitioner rebutted the presumption certain property transfers made during the 60-month look-back period were motivated by the future need to qualify for medical assistance:

Considering the medical evidence in light of the substantiated testimony that the transfers were made for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of a home for the grandson’s use, as well as the evidence that the transfers took place several years before decedent applied for assistance and that she retained most of her assets thereafter, we find that the presumption was successfully rebutted. The determination by DOH was not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled … . Matter of Collins v Zucker, 2016 NY Slip Op 07897, 3rd Dept 11-23-16

MEDICAID (TRANSFERS MADE DURING 60-MONTH LOOK-BACK PERIOD WERE NOT MADE IN ANTICIPATION OF THE FUTURE NEED FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DETERMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ANNULLED)

You might also like
Father, Who Had Not Been Informed of the Birth of His Child Until After the Child Was Adopted, Was Properly Awarded Custody of the Child
Criteria for Common-Law Indemnification Explained
Suit by Beneficiaries to Recoup Estate Property, Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Executor, Allowed to Go Forward
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S UNILATERALLY CONTRACTING WITH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY FOR A PREKINDERGARTEN PROGRAM WAS NOT AN IMPROPER PRACTICE UNDER THE EDUCATION LAW (TAYLOR LAW).
RESTITUTION ORDERED AT SENTENCING (ABOUT $45OO) WAS ABOUT $500 HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA DEAL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (THIRD DEPT).
THE DOCTOR ORDERED A CERTAIN DOSAGE OF MEDICATION BE ADMINISTERED FOR “1” MINUTE TO ADDRESS SYMPTOMS OF A STROKE, BUT A NURSE MISTAKENLY PROGRAMMED THE MACHINE TO ADMINISTER THE MEDICATION FOR “11” MINUTES; THE ACTION SOUNDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT). ​
POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER SUFFERED BY A COURT OFFICER AFTER THE OFFICER RETURNED FIRE KILLING A SHOOTER AT THE COURTHOUSE WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A COMPENSABLE ACCIDENT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ELEMENTS OF AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD EXPLAINED, WHEN FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT... CRITERIA FOR EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED, INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT...