Judgment and order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The IAS court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' application for class action certification. At issue in this CPLR article 78 proceeding is the propriety of the manner in which respondents have determined to use the income of an institutionalized Medicaid recipient relative to the needs of the recipient's non-institutionalized spouse under the regulatory scheme in existence prior to the enactment of Social Services Law § 366-c (see, Conrad v. Hackett, 149 Misc.2d 56). The court correctly noted that class actions are not generally regarded as a superior means of adjudicating claims involving governmental operations (see, Matter of Martin v. Lavine, 39 N.Y.2d 72, 75; Matter of Delmar v. Blum, 73 A.D.2d 252, 274, affd 53 N.Y.2d 105), especially, where, as here, application of principles of stare decisis will adequately protect subsequent petitioners (see, Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 499, rearg denied 68 N.Y.2d 808). A question of law common to the class is presented relative to the propriety of respondents' practice in determining the use of the income of an institutionalized Medicaid recipient; however, inasmuch as determination of each class member's claim would require proof of entitlement and the parties' specific circumstances, questions affecting individual members would predominate over those common to the class (CPLR 901 [a] [2]; see, Scott v. Prudential Ins. Co., 80 A.D.2d 746, appeal dismissed 54 N.Y.2d 753). Thus, allowing this matter to proceed as a class action would not be likely to achieve any economy of judicial resources (see, Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 97).