You are here: / / Petitioner Entitled to Homestead Exemption During Period Prior to the Contract...

Petitioner Entitled to Homestead Exemption During Period Prior to the Contract of Sale for Her Home

The Second Department determined that a January contract of sale of the petitioner’s home did not overcome the presumption in favor of recognizing the homestead exemption during the three months prior to the contract of sale.  The petitioner was in a nursing home and had indicated her “intent to return home” entitling her to the homestead exemption from the calculation of her assets during the pre-contract-of-sale period:

Pursuant to the Medicaid Reference Guide (hereinafter the MRG), published by the NYSDOH, when a Supplemental Security Income-related applicant is “requesting Medicaid coverage for the three month retroactive period . . . the value and availability of the applicant’s resources are determined as of the first day of the month for each month that applicant is seeking Medicaid coverage” (emphasis added). The MRG also provides that an applicant’s homestead, i.e., primary residence, is an exempt resource for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility despite the fact that the applicant is temporarily absent therefrom, if the applicant “indicates an intent to return” to the home. Pursuant to 18 NYCRR 360-4.7(a)(1), a person who is 65 or older loses the homestead exemption if he or she moves out of the home “without intent to return.” In determining such intent, “the proper standard to be applied is a subjective intent’ standard and not an objective expectations’ standard”… . There is a “presumption in favor of the homestead exemption” in cases where a hospitalized Medicaid applicant intends to return home … . Matter of Inglese v Shah, 2014 NY Slip Op 06586, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

You might also like
A FOREIGN DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN NEW YORK BY A PLENARY ACTION OR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; THERE IS NO NEED FOR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Driver’s Statement In a Plea Proceeding that She Did Not Have Permission to Use Defendant-Owner’s Vehicle at the Time of the Accident Insufficient to Overcome Statutory Presumption Of Operation with Owner’s Consent
Fraud Sufficiently Pled; Six-Year Statute of Limitations Applied
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT DID NOT PROVE IT GAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO RENEW THE LEASE, THE TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEF IN EQUITY (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOWING AN UNSWORN WITNESS TO TESTIFY WAS ERROR; ALLOWING QUESTIONING ABOUT A WITNESS’S ASSERTION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL; FIFTH AMENDMENT ISSUES CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED FOR A STATEMENT NOT SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAW OF THE CASE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER THE BANK COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304; THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DETERMINED IN THE BANK’S FAVOR AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RECONSIDERED, SUA SPONTE, WHEN THE BANK MOVED FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF BEER DISTRIBUTORS AND DEFENDANT BEER COMPANY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT SECTION 55-C(4), WHICH PROHIBITS TERMINATION OF A DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, APPLIES TO BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL CONTRACTS; THE COURT WENT ON TO FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT, WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ORAL DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF SECTION 55-C(4) (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DIVESTED OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE CHILD TURNED 21, MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING THE CHILD TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) RENDERED ACADEMIC (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Derivative-Shareholder-Claim Versus Direct-Individual-Claim Explained/Out-of-Pocket... Warrantless Cell Phone Search Required Suppression and a New Trial