Legal Opinion · Dissent

Coleman v. Daines

New York Court of Appeals

Decided October 30, 2012Published

1Dissent

Pigott, J. (dissenting).

For over four years, petitioner Barbara Coleman has received the “temporary assistance” benefits she requested pursuant to former Social Services Law § 133 and, as the majority impliedly concedes, the issue as to whether she is entitled to those benefits is moot. Because in my view no exception to the mootness doctrine applies in light of the August 30, 2010 amendment to Social Services Law § 133, I respectfully dissent.

In November 2007, Coleman, with the assistance of counsel, applied for Medicaid and submitted to the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hearst Corp. v. ClyneNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. PatakiNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
  3. City of New York v. MaulNew York Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Coleman v. DainesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API