Legal Opinion · Dissent

Sutter v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 13, 1984Published

1Dissent

Callahan and Doerr, JJ. (dissenting).

We cannot assume, as does the majority, that the Legislature intended that the Federal “lump-sum” requirement is to apply to the State Home Relief program, which does not involve the input of any Federal funds, barring a statutory predicate for such inclusion. 11 In Matter of Bates v Toia (45 NY2d 460, 464), the Court of Appeals held that “[t]he Legislature may constitutionally delegate rule-making authority to an administrative agency only if it furnishes the agency with at least a broad outline within which to act * * * Certainly, the commissioner has no…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Townsend v. SwankSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Bates v. ToiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. MATTER OF LEE v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  4. Harbolic v. BergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
  5. Boines v. LavineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API