You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED...

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Commissioner of the NYS Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance properly interpreted the food stamp regulations. Petitioner’s application to continue her Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) (food stamp) benefits was denied. Petitioner had five children, two in college. The two college students were not counted as part of the household for SNAP purposes but the child support income petitioner received for the two college students was counted. So petitioner’s income was deemed too high for food stamp eligibility:

Pursuant to 7 CFR 273.7(a)(1), “[a]s a condition of eligibility for SNAP benefits, each household member not exempt under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must comply with the following SNAP work requirements,” including registering for work. According to 7 CFR 273.7(b)(1)(viii), students enrolled at least half time in institutions of higher education are only exempt if they meet “the student eligibility requirements listed in” 7 CFR 273.5(b), which includes students under 18, students with special needs, students in work study programs, or students employed for a minimum of 20 hours per week.

Similarly, 18 NYCRR 387.16(d) provides for the inclusion of income from nonhousehold members who have been disqualified for an intentional program violation, ineligible alien status, failure to attest to citizenship or alien status, or failure to comply with a food stamp work registration or work requirement as provided in 18 NYCRR 385.3. Under 18 NYCRR 385.3 and 18 NYCRR 387.1(jj), such students are not exempt from work requirements, and are not eligible for food stamps. Pursuant to 18 NYCRR 387.16(d) their income has to be included in household income.

The college students were not employed a minimum of 20 hours per week or otherwise eligible for an exemption. Accordingly, their income was properly included in household income. Matter of Leggio v Devine, 2018 NY Slip Op 01312, Second Dept 2-28-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/FOOD STAMPS (ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP) (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))/SNAP (FOOD STAMPS, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT))

/by
You might also like
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WHEEL STOP, WHICH HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS POSITION AT THE TOP OF THE PARKING SPACE, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance
THE CRITERIA FOR PRE-ANSWER DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.
NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD.
THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM ASSERTING A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM DID NOT MENTION AN ALLEGEDLY MISSING STOP SIGN AS A BASIS FOR LIABILITY, THE MISSING STOP SIGN WAS MENTIONED IN THE POLICE REPORT WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS FORCED TO WALK IN THE STREET, WHERE SHE WAS STRUCK BY A CAR, BECAUSE THE COUNTY HAD OBSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK WITH SNOW, COUNTY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY TURNING LEFT INTO... FORMER COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY...