Skip to content

Archives

Dss fulton county ny


dss fulton county ny

See details on Fulton County DSS. Comments, details, etc. Along with services for this Food Stamp Office in Johnstown, NY. Application for benefits may be made in person at the Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Broadway, Schenectady, New York Martin, 39, of County Route 4, Fulton, NY was charged with Criminal Mexico, New York , () Otsego County Otsego County DSS.
dss fulton county ny

Johnstown couple arrested in alleged welfare fraud

Johnstown couple arrested in alleged welfare fraud

JOHNSTOWN, N.Y. (NEWS10) – On Wednesday, a couple was arrested by Fulton County Sheriff’s Investigators following an investigation into Welfare Fraud. Victoria Intelisano and Michael Intelisano, both of Johnstown, were arrested after the Fulton Dss fulton county ny Department of Social Services (DSS) Police said received allegations that the couple failed to report they were

Read Full Story

If the content contained herein violates any of your rights, including those of copyright, you are requested to immediately notify us using via the following email address operanews-external(at)mynewextsetup.us

DSSFulton County Department of Social ServicesJohnstownMichael mynewextsetup.usia Intelisano

Top News

comments

Load app to read more comments

Related

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Tammy Young, Individually and As Parent and Natural Guardianof Infants Matthew Young, Michael Young and Nicoleyoung, Plaintiff-appellant, v. County of Fulton, Fulton County Department of Socialservices, Karen Hasenfuss, Individually and in Her Officialcapacity As an Employee of the County of Fulton, Kathleenpape, Individually and in Her Official Capacity As Anemployee of the County of Fulton, Penny Lockwood,individually and in Her Official Capacity As an Employee Ofthe County of Fulton, Jeanne D. Johannes, Individually Andin Her Official Capacity As Commissioner of the Departmentof Social Services of Fulton County, John Doe, Unknownemployee of the County of Fulton, and Jane Doe, Unknownemployee of the County of Fulton, Defendants-appellees, F.3d (2d Cir. )

In September plaintiff-appellant Tammy Young voluntarily placed her twin boys in foster care under the supervision of the Fulton County Department of Social Services ("DSS"). Young brings this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § () seeking damages against the County of Fulton, DSS, and several individual employees of DSS for allegedly denying her the right to visit her children for 39 days, without the prior hearing required by New York law. Young also argues that certain procedural failures evidence a conspiracy to take her children permanently in violation of her custodial rights.

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) or alternatively for summary judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Individual defendants argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because at the time of the events in this case there was no clearly established right of a parent to visit children voluntarily placed in foster care, or alternatively that their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The County and DSS argued that Young failed to make the necessary showing for municipal liability under § that the harm resulted from can i open a business bank account online official policy, custom, or practice. All defendants argued that the allegations of a conspiracy are conclusory and therefore insufficient to support a claim under § The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, M.J.), granted summary judgment: (A) for the individual defendants on the ground that there was no clearly established parental visitation right for a non-custodial parent; (B) for the County and DSS on the ground that Young could not show that the actions of the individual defendants were done pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice of the County or DSS; and (C) for all defendants on the conspiracy claim on the grounds that the allegations were conclusory. Young v. County of Fulton, F. Supp. (N.D.N.Y). We affirm for the reasons stated herein.

BACKGROUND

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment against Young, we view the facts in the light most favorable to her and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., U.S., S. Ct., 91 L. Ed. 2d ().

Young is the mother of three children. During anddss fulton county ny were at least nine incidents of serious domestic violence between Young and her husband in which her twin boys were subjected to physical and emotional harm. On that basis DSS filed a neglect petition in the Family Court of the State of New York in December At the August hearing on this petition, Young (who was represented by counsel) admitted to negligence charges under N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § (f) (McKinney ). Young and her family were placed under DSS supervision for one year.

A month after the one-year period of supervision ended, Young came to DSS and voluntarily placed her twin sons in foster care. Young explained to the caseworker that she was having trouble controlling the twin boys and that they were a threat to their younger sister. The caseworker advised Young that as a result of her voluntary placement of the children in foster care, a second neglect petition would be filed. At a Family Court hearing on the second neglect petition in Maythe boys were ordered to be held in foster homes under DSS supervision until March The boys were originally placed in separate homes, but both were eventually placed under the foster care of defendant Karen Hasenfuss.

Young maintains that because she brought the twins to DSS voluntarily, DSS should have taken custody of the twin boys pursuant to a "voluntary petition" rather than a "neglect petition." Young claims that this was the first step in a conspiracy among DSS employees Penny Lockwood, Kathleen Pape, and Karen Hasenfuss to take custody of the boys from Young so that Hasenfuss could adopt them. According to Young, the filing of a neglect petition enabled DSS to remove the boys from her more quickly, and afforded defendant Hasenfuss (as dss fulton county ny parent) preference over the maternal grandparents in adoption proceedings. In support of her claim that DSS filed an improper petition, Young notes that only one of the eight alleged acts of neglect underlying the second neglect petition was recorded in the state register of child abuse, a recordation required by New York law.

During the latter part ofDSS decided that the mother's relationship with the twins was continuing to deteriorate. The boys allegedly suffered from severe emotional trauma before and after her visits. Citing this phenomenon, and the failure of Young (now divorced) to provide a stable home environment, DSS decided to take custody of the boys permanently. On September 2,Young was notified that DSS intended to file a petition to keep the children in foster care indefinitely. DSS suspended Young's visitation rights eleven days later. In a contemporaneous letter, DSS employee Lockwood (the children's counselor for nearly two years) explained that decision to caseworker Pape on the basis that the children's behavioral problems decreased after placement in the foster home, but that they were exhibiting extreme reactions of distress before and after each visit with their mother. Lockwood expressed the view, which DSS has adopted, that the denial of visitation was in the best interests of the children.

On September 21 (eight days after Young's loss of visitation privileges) DSS filed a permanent neglect petition in Family Court seeking permanent custody of the boys. Two days later, while this petition was still pending, Young filed a petition in Family Court demanding the right to visit her children. The Family Court conducted a preliminary hearing on Young's petition and, on October 21, ordered visitation to resume immediately. In December, the Family Court conducted a full hearing on the visitation dispute. The supervisor of DSS's foster care department admitted on cross-examination that although the decision to deny visitation was in the best interests of the children, the decision was made in violation of New York law. The court held that N.Y. mynewextsetup.us R. & Reg. tit. 18, § required a court order before suspension of visiting rights, and ordered that the visits be permitted to resume. In light of this decision, DSS dropped its permanent neglect petition. Young eventually regained custody of her sons.

DISCUSSION

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. See Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., F.3d(2d Cir. ). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the evidence presented shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).

The thrust of Young's argument is that the defendants violated New York law by suspending her visiting rights without due process, and that this failure: (1) constitutes the violation of a clearly established federal right; (2) shows that the individual defendants were improperly trained; and (3) evidences a conspiracy to take her children permanently without due process of law.

The fact that DSS employees violated New York law when they denied plaintiff visitation without a prior hearing does not necessarily give rise to a federal civil rights claim. See Doe v. Connecticut Dep't of Child & Youth Servs., F.2d(2d Cir. ). The procedure mandated by state family law is not the benchmark for evaluating whether or not there has been a federal constitutional violation. " [A] violation of state law neither gives [plaintiff] a § claim nor deprives defendants of the defense of qualified immunity to a proper § claim." Robison v. Via, F.2d(2d Cir. ). Without more, the fact that defendants violated New York procedural requirements does not support liability under §

Magistrate Judge Hurd held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that they deprived Young of her constitutional right to visit her children on the ground that there was no clearly established right to visitation for a non-custodial parent. See Young v. County of Fulton, F. Supp.(N.D.N.Y). We think the issue in this case is considerably narrower than the one framed by Young and decided by the Magistrate Judge. Whatever the contours of the right of a non-custodial parent to visit a child, the issue in this case concerns only whether, as a matter of federal due process, there is a right to a pre-termination hearing before visitation may be suspended, and, more particularly, whether such a procedural due process right was clearly established at the time of the events in this case.

Government agents enjoy qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions if either (1) their conduct "did not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known," or (2) "it was objectively reasonable to believe that [their] acts did not violate these clearly established rights." Soares v. Connecticut, 8 F.3d(2d Cir. ) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Finnegan v. Fountain, F.2d(2d Cir. )); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, U.S., S. Ct., 73 L. Ed. 2d (). In deciding whether a right was clearly established, we ask: (1) Was the law defined with reasonable clarity? (2) Had the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit affirmed the rule? and (3) Would a reasonable defendant have understood from the existing law that the conduct was unlawful? See McEvoy v. Spencer, F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. ). Typically this Court puts significant weight on whether or not the law was governed by controlling precedent of this Circuit. See Richardson v. Selsky, 5 F.3d(2d Cir. ). Even in the absence of binding precedent, a right is clearly established if " [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right [T]he unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson v. Creighton, U.S., S. Ct., 97 L. Ed. 2d (). The question is not what a lawyer would learn or intuit from researching case law, but what a reasonable person in a defendant's position should know about the constitutionality of the conduct.

There is no authority for the proposition that in a non-custodial parent had a clearly established right to a pre-termination hearing before suspension of whatever visitation rights she might have retained. Two courts that considered the issue prior to both held that federal due process requirements are satisfied by a hearing after termination. See Fitzgerald v. Williamson, F.2d(8th Cir. ); Pfoltzer v. County of Fairfax, F. Supp.(E.D. Va. ). Young's reliance on Aristotle P. v. Johnson, F. Supp. (N.D. Ill. ), is unavailing. That decision suggests that a right of familial association is a corollary of the parental custody rights announced in Stanley v. Illinois, U.S., 92 S. Ct., 31 L. Ed. 2d (). See Aristotle P., F. Supp. at (upholding the right of siblings not to be separated for extended periods of time without visits to each other). The relevance of that decision to a person like Young, who voluntarily surrendered custody, is doubtful, but in any event, that decision did not begin to describe the contours of a parental visitation right and did not remotely establish a procedural right to a prior hearing before visitation could be suspended. Young cites no other authority for her argument. We hold that in Young had no clearly established right to a prior hearing before whatever visitation rights she might have had could be temporarily denied, and that the individual defendants therefore are entitled to qualified immunity.

The district court dismissed Young's Monell claim against the County of Fulton and DSS because her allegations failed to establish that she suffered any deprivation of her rights by reason of an official policy, custom, or practice of the County or DSS. See Young, F. Supp. at (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., U.S.98 S. Ct.1st financial bank annual fee L. Ed. 2d ()). We agree with the district court and affirm on that ground.

Young urges vigorously on appeal that the DSS employees failed to comply with the procedural requirements of New York law, and that this non-compliance demonstrates a failure to train under Monell. This argument is not addressed in the district court opinion.

A claim for failure to train will trigger municipal liability only where "the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights" of those with whom the state officials will come into contact. See City of Canton v. Harris, U.S., S. Ct., L. Ed. 2d (). In Walker v. City of New York, F.2d (2d Cir. ), this Court listed three showings required to support a claim that a municipality's failure to train amounted to "deliberate indifference" of the rights of citizens: (1) that "a policymaker [of the municipality] knows 'to a moral certainty' that [its] employees will confront a given situation"; (2) that "the situation either presents the employee with a difficult choice of the sort that training or supervision will make less difficult or that there is a history of employees mishandling the situation"; and (3) that "the wrong choice by the employee will frequently cause the deprivation of a citizen's constitutional rights." Walker, F.2d at (citation omitted). Under the Walker test, a claim for failure to train cannot be sustained unless the employees violated a clearly established federal constitutional right. See Watson v. Sexton, F. Supp.(S.D.N.Y. ) ("To be 'deliberately indifferent' to rights requires that those rights be clearly established."). We therefore affirm the dismissal of the Monell claim against the County and DSS.

Finally, as to the claim that the County of Fulton and DSS conspired with the individual defendants to deprive Young of permanent custody, the district court held that Young's purely conclusory pleadings were insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, as to the individual defendants, the district court could identify no particular fact in support of a conspiracy claim. See Young, F. Supp. at As for the County and DSS, the district court found that there was no evidence suggesting that the conspiracy, if it existed, was undertaken pursuant to a policy, custom, or practice of the County or DSS, and that in any event, the acts of the individual defendants were beyond the scope of employment and could not be imputed to the County and DSS. See Young, F. Supp. at

In her affidavit opposing summary judgment, Young alleged that defendants misused their authority to file a petition to deprive Young of custody, and advanced the following proof that they were motivated by selfishness or malice. First, although Young conceded that her visits caused the twins distress, she argued that the twins "had exhibited this 'problem' behavior before they went into foster care," and implied that DSS had a responsibility to help her overcome her own parental deficiencies. Second, DSS did not suspend visits by her ex-husband or his parents despite the fact that the twins allegedly had problems before and after all family visits. Finally, Young claims that the permanent neglect petition falsely alleged that DSS made "diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship," and that Young "failed for a period of more than one year following the date the children came into the care of [DSS] substantially to plan for the future of the children although physically and financially able to do so." Young offered evidence that she attended various counseling at the behest of DSS and pointed out that the permanent neglect petition did not allege how Young failed to satisfy the obligations imposed on her by the second neglect petition. Young contends that her compliance with the second neglect petition shows that DSS and the individual defendants had an improper motive in filing the permanent neglect petition.

This evidence against the individual defendants is thin at best, and amounts to nothing as against the County and DSS, but we need not address these issues point by point, because we can affirm the district court ruling on an independent ground.

Unquestionably there pioneer savings bank malta ny a constitutional right to custody of one's children. See Stanley, U.S. at92 S. Ct. at ; Robison, F.2d at But Young voluntarily relinquished temporary custody, and was never denied permanent custody. The effort to deprive Young of permanent custody, which she alleges was a conspiracy, began with the filing of an allegedly improper permanent neglect petition. Until DSS dropped the petition, proceedings were moving along the normal procedural channels established by New York law, which Young does not challenge under the federal Constitution. There was no deprivation of a federal constitutional right, and therefore there can be no civil rights conspiracy to deprive that right. See Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff, 63 F.3d(2d Cir. ) (" [T]he [conspiracy] lawsuit will stand only insofar as the plaintiff can prove the sine qua non of a § action: the violation of a federal right.").CONCLUSION

The judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is administered by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA), is geared toward enabling low-income households to purchase the food they need to maintain proper nutritional levels and good health. The Thrifty Food Plan is USDA's estimate of a family's total monthly food expense broken down by household size which is adjusted annually in accordance with the cost of living index.

How do I apply for benefits?

My Benefits Online Application

Through a community partnership, three (3) community based organization are available to assist you in applying for SNAP benefits using the MyBenefits online application.

  • Schenectady Community Action Program, Inc. (SCAP) - ()
  • Nutrition Outreach Education Program (NOEP) at Catholic Charities - ()
  • Schenectady Inner-City Ministries (SICM) - ()

Applicants may apply for SNAP benefits either in person at the Department or at one of three community bases sites.  Application for benefits may be made in person at the Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Broadway, Schenectady, New York  

If you are unable to appear for a face-to- face interview, a friend or relative may apply for food stamps on the household's behalf. If the applicant is unable to appoint an "Authorized Representative", arrangements may dss fulton county ny made under certain circumstances for a worker to conduct the interview at home or by telephone. SSI recipients may apply by mail or in person at the local Social Security office or the Department of Social Services.

What are the main eligibility factors?
The Program is designed to provide a nutritional supplement for both public assistance and non-public assistance households who meet certain eligibility standards with respect to income, resources, and alien status. Factors such as household size, shelter/utility expense, and monthly income are taken into account in determining specific benefit levels for each household.

Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and live alone may be eligible to automatically receive SNAP Benefits under the New York State Nutrition Improvement Project.  Please call the hotline at  for additional information.

How long will it take to determine eligibility?
Although an eligibility determination may take up to 30 days from the date of application, if eligible, benefits will be issued retroactively to the date the application was initially filed. In addition, an eligible SNAP household may be entitled to receive benefits on an expedited basis within 5 calendar days of the application date, provided the household's income, and available resources are within established limits during the month of application.

Once eligibility is established, recipients are issued a Benefit Identification (ID) card and are asked to select a Personal Identification Number (PIN), which is used to access benefits at any number of local retail sites throughout the county.

How do I maintain my eligibility?
Once initial eligibility is established, a redetermination for continued participation in SNAP is conducted on a bi-annual basis. Each food stamp household is scheduled for a recertification interview at the end of the initial 12 month certification period in order to document changes in income, expenses, household composition or any other change in circumstances that may affect SNAP eligibility or degree of need. SNAP recipients with earned income, however, are scheduled for a recertification interview every 6 months.

It is important to note that the ultimate responsibility rests with the SNAP household in reporting changes in a timely fashion. Failure to comply in this regard, or intentionally withholding information or filing a fraudulent application, may result in food stamp penalties, including a reduction in benefits, durational sanctions or permanent disqualification.

Individuals who qualify for SNAP under the New York State Nutrition Improvement Project (NYSNIP) will be eligible for a 48 month certification period.  Call the hotline at

How can I use my SNAP Benefits at Farmers' Markets?
You can use your SNAP benefits at many of the Schenectady County Farmers' Markets and the Schenectady Greenmarket to purchase fruits and vegetables, breads, baked goods, meat, fish and poultry, dairy, maple syrup, honey, jams, sauces, spreas, vegetables, and plants.

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

OSWEGO — In response to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s directive regarding the COVID outbreak, the Oswego County Department of Social Services closed its Oswego County One Stop Career Centers in Fulton, and the Career Center at the Department of Social Services, Mexico effective Tuesday, March The centers will be closed until dss fulton county ny least April

Stacy Alvord, Commissioner of Social Services, said the Department of Social Services will continue to see walk-ins and people with emergency needs that require a face-to-face meeting.

“All program services are available by phone, however we anticipate that our phone response time may be lengthy, as we are being inundated with calls,” said Alvord. “We are encouraging people to reach out through email or phone.”

Home Energy Assistance Program: [email protected] or

Medicaid: [email protected].us or

Temporary Assistance: [email protected] or

Supplemental Nutrition (Food Stamps): [email protected] or

Child Care Subsidy: [email protected] or

Child Support/Enforcement: [email protected] or

Adult and Family Services: [email protected] or,

People should continue to report suspected child abuse or neglect as follows - however if they believe that a child is in immediate danger, they should call or their local police dss fulton county ny Child Abuse or Neglect, Phone:

Mandated Reporter Number to Report Child Abuse or Neglect: Phone:

Child Protective Unit: Phone:

The main phone number for the Fulton office is and for the Mexico office is

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Johnson Newspapers

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Fulton County drops residency requirement, again

Fulton County, NY

By Jason Subik

JOHNSTOWN — For the second time in the last two months the Fulton County Board of Supervisors has voted to approve waiving the in-county residency requirement for some county positions — opening up eligibility for the jobs to residents of contiguous border counties. In September, the board waived the

mynewextsetup.us
Related

Congress passes short-term funding bill to avert shutdown

Washington — Both chambers of Congress on Thursday passed a stopgap measure that will fund federal agencies into mid-February, sending the legislation to President Biden's desk and avoiding a holiday season partial shutdown. The measure passed the Senate with substantial GOP support, hours after passing the House Congressman

CONGRESS & COURTS・

Omicron: What we know - and don't know - about the new COVID variant

The Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 is the latest strain of the coronavirus to be designated a "variant of concern" by the World Health Organization: more and more countries are reporting cases, and it has an unusual combination of mutations that may enable it to spread faster. Scientists are also trying to determine whether the current vaccines are effective against it.

PUBLIC HEALTH・

65M women could lose abortion rights in Supreme Court case

More than 65 million American women would immediately lose access to an abortion in their home states if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the landmark case that established the right to seek the procedure nearly half a century ago. Existing laws on the books in 20 states ban abortions

CONGRESS & COURTS・

CBS News

Americans with private health insurance to be reimbursed for at-home COVID tests

Americans with private health insurance will be reimbursed for at-home tests, President Biden announced Thursday, and international travelers will now be required to undergo stricter COVID testing. The new measures the president announced at the National Institutes of Health are a part of a new administration strategy to curb the

PUBLIC HEALTH・

RELATED LOCAL CHANNELS

High school shooting suspect might have had gun during meeting with school officials and parents before violence began, prosecutor says

(CNN) — There is a "strong possibility" the year-old sophomore accused of killing four fellow students this week at a Michigan high school had the gun in his backpack when he met shortly before the shooting with administrators and his parents over his concerning behavior that day, the prosecutor in the case told CNN on Thursday night.

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI・

US to restart 'Remain pirates of the caribbean at worlds end blu ray Mexico' program following court order

The Biden administration on Thursday plans to restart the "Remain in Mexico" program following a court order to reimplement the policy first launched under President Trump while it appeals the decision. The rollout follows weeks of negotiations with Mexico over how to reimplement a plan that under the Trump administration

IMMIGRATION・

CBS News

U.K. appeals court sides with Meghan in privacy battle with tabloid publisher over letter to her dad

London — A British court dismissed an appeal on Thursday by a newspaper publisher seeking to overturn a previous ruling that found the Mail on Sunday had breached the Duchess of Sussex's privacy by publishing portions of a letter she sent to her father. Britain's Court of Appeal upheld the earlier High Court decision, handed down in February, that the Mail had in fact breached Meghan's privacy in a way that was "manifestly excessive and hence unlawful."

POLITICS・

Economy added justjobs last month, far below expectations

The economy added justjobs in the month of November, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday, and the unemployment rate fell to percent from percent. Economists had been expecting a gain ofjobs and the unemployment rate to fall to percent. "At this point

ECONOMY・

IN THIS ARTICLE

#Civil Service#Advertising#Social Services#Dss#Board#Fulton County Personnel#Labor

U.S. Department of Justice opened civil investigation into sexual harassment claims against Andrew Cuomo

Albany, New York — The U.S. Department of Justice began a civil inquiry in August into sexual harassment claims made against former Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York officials disclosed Thursday. The exact nature of the inquiry and its current status were unclear. The office of Gov. Kathy Hochul, who took

NEW YORK CITY, NY・

NFL suspends Antonio Brown and two other players for misrepresenting COVID vaccine status

The NFL has suspended three players without pay for misrepresenting their vaccine status, the league announced Thursday. Tampa Bay Buccaneers wide receiver Antonio Brown, his teammate Mike Edwards and free agent John Franklin III will each miss their next three games, the league said. The suspension comes after players were

NFL・

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

3 retailers accused of Welfare fraud in Fulton County

A three-month welfare fraud investigation in Fulton County results in three retailers being arrested and charged. 

Usually the public hears of people lying on their applications to get particular Welfare benefits, but this investigation targeted retailers who were accepting EBT food stamp cards for unapproved items.

During the investigation, undercover informants were able to use dss fulton county ny that should only be used for approved foods to buy cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and beer. 

“It’s such an unusual type of arrest for us to go after the retailers but it shows you the extent of the abuse,” said Fulton County Sheriff Dss fulton county ny Giardino.

A three-month long investigation in Fulton County ends with four arrests and a lot of evidence 

“You can see that there’s alcoholic beverages, there’s chewing tobacco, cigarettes,” Giardino said.

Following complaints from the public, a joint investigation launched between the sheriff’s office, DSS and New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

The focus was retailers who were accepting Electronic Benefits Transfer cards as payment for items not approved under the food stamp program. 

“We saw spikes in EBT usages at some of our smaller retailers that really didn’t coincide with the products that they were selling,” said DSS Principle Social Welfare Examiner Kristina Ruggeri.

“We were able to obtain a benefit card from the state and I had an undercover agent and we went around to different businesses and proceeded to purchase items that you see in front of you,” said Fulton County Sheriff’s Office Investigator Keith Manners.

The three retailers all reside in the city of Gloversville. 

A cashier at Country Farms Store, the manager of the Fulton Street Deli, and the owner of Primo’s Pizza, Pasta and Deli are facing charges for accepting EBT cards for purchases of items including beer, gasoline and hot food. 

The owner of the pizza shop was also paying for a food stamp recipient’s cell phone bill with cash and reimbursing himself through her EBT card. 

“There’s no tax on snap benefits so everything that was purchased went through dss fulton county ny tax on it,” Manners said.

Retailers are also accused of trading cash for funds on the EBT cards 

“That’s a big problem because then you’re putting $50 dollars in the hands of a drug user who’s now going out and getting that and as you’ve heard we have an opioid epidemic not only in the country but in Fulton County,” said Fulton County District Attorney Chad Brown.

An investigation sends the message to retailers that completing illegal transactions will result in criminal charges. 

The fourth person arrested was a food stamp recipient who was illegally buying pizza with her card. 

Four other recipients are now disqualified from the program for a length of time for their misuse of the benefits. 

As for the three retailers -- they will likely face consequences on a federal level including losing their retail, alcohol and lottery licenses. 

Источник: mynewextsetup.us

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *