A New York appellate court has upheld a decision denying disaster recovery funds to Doreen Raffa, who sought assistance after Hurricane Sandy. The court ruled that Raffa's prior conviction for insurance fraud disqualified her from receiving funds from the New York Rising Housing Recovery Program. This ruling affects individuals seeking disaster recovery assistance and highlights the importance of transparency in the application process.
The case, titled Matter of Raffa v. Bova-Hiatt (Docket No. 2022-00505), was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on June 10, 2026. The ruling emphasizes the legal standards governing the eligibility for state disaster recovery programs and the consequences of failing to disclose relevant information.
Background
Doreen Raffa applied for assistance from the New York Rising Housing Recovery Program in April 2013 after her home in Long Beach sustained flood damage from Hurricane Sandy. Initially, she was awarded $400,000 in grant funds, of which $306,250 was disbursed to her. However, in November 2018, the Governor's Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR) informed Raffa that she was ineligible for further assistance and would need to return the funds she had already received.
The GOSR's decision was based on Raffa's failure to disclose a prior fire that had damaged her home. The agency claimed that she submitted an insurance claim to Allstate Insurance Company for this fire damage, which was denied due to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. Following this determination, Raffa appealed the decision through the designated administrative process.
In October 2019, the GOSR upheld its initial determination, leading Raffa to file a proceeding under CPLR article 78 against Lisa Bova-Hiatt, the executive director of the GOSR. This legal action sought to annul the agency's decision. The case eventually made its way to the Appellate Division, where the court would review the lower court's ruling.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, which had denied Raffa's petition and dismissed the proceeding. The court found that the lower court acted within its discretion by allowing the GOSR to supplement the administrative record with additional exhibits. These included documents from a previous legal action Raffa had against Allstate, which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the insurance company based on defenses of arson and fraud.
The court ruled, "Judicial review of an administrative decision pursuant to CPLR article 78 is limited... to a determination of whether the administrative decision is arbitrary or capricious, or lacks a rational basis."
The appellate judges—Hector D. Lasalle, William G. Ford, Helen Voutsinas, and James P. McCormack—concluded that the GOSR's decision had a rational basis and was not arbitrary or capricious. They stated that the determination was supported by the evidence in the record, emphasizing that the court must uphold an administrative decision if it finds a rational basis, even if it might have reached a different conclusion.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking disaster recovery assistance in New York. It underscores the importance of full disclosure when applying for state aid, especially in programs designed to assist victims of natural disasters. The court's decision reinforces the idea that past legal issues, such as convictions for fraud, can impact eligibility for financial assistance from government programs.
Moreover, the ruling may set a precedent for future cases involving the denial of disaster recovery funds based on applicants' prior conduct. It highlights the state's commitment to ensuring that funds are allocated to those who meet eligibility requirements and have not engaged in fraudulent activities. This decision may also prompt applicants to be more cautious and transparent in their disclosures to avoid similar outcomes.
What's Next
Raffa's legal options may be limited following this ruling, as the court's decision is a significant affirmation of the GOSR's authority to enforce eligibility criteria for disaster recovery funds. It is unclear if Raffa plans to appeal this decision to a higher court. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing.