Brownley v. Doar
| Decision Date | 11 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | 402724/2005. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 26009,811 N.Y.S.2d 894,11 Misc.3d 615 |
| Parties | DORIS BROWNLEY et al., on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Children and All Those Who Are Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT DOAR, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Weil, Gotschal & Manges, LLP, New York City (Adam K. Grant of counsel), and Legal Aid Society (Susan C. Bahn, Brooklyn, and Scott Rosenberg, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Roy A. Esnard of counsel), for Robert Doar, defendant.
Horing Welikson & Rosen, P.C., Williston Park (Daniel Roskoff of counsel), for Denyse Roberts, defendant.
Cohen, Hurkin, Ehrenfeld, Pomerantz & Tenenbaum, Brooklyn (Marybeth Hotaling of counsel), for 2239 Creston Avenue Co., LLC, defendant.
This action relates to the long-running dispute over allowances for rent subsidies between indigent families with children and the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA or defendant), formerly the State Department of Social Services. In this case, Doris Brownley and Janee Nelson (plaintiffs), both single mothers, seek a preliminary injunction to stay their imminent eviction from homes where they have resided for many years with their children. Plaintiffs claim the current shelter allowance under Safety Net Assistance (SNA) (Social Services Law §§ 157-165) is inadequate to keep them in their homes. Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of all families with children in New York City who receive SNA and who: (1) are faced with eviction from their homes because of the inadequacy of the New York City shelter allowance schedule, and (2) either do not qualify for a rent supplement under Family Eviction Prevention Supplement (FEPS) program or who qualify for a supplement that is inadequate to meet their needs.
The issue of the right to adequate shelter allowances for families with children originated in the case of Jiggetts v. Grinker (75 NY2d 411 [1990]), an action under the public assistance program known as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC). ADC was the State's promulgation of the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. In 1990, the New York Court of Appeals determined that New York's Social Services Law § 350 (1) (a) imposed a duty on the State Commissioner of Social Services to establish shelter allowances for ADC recipients bearing a reasonable relationship to the cost of housing in New York City. (Jiggetts v. Grinker, 75 NY2d 411, 417 [1990].) In so holding, the Court of Appeals relied on the statute's express language:
(Social Services Law § 350 [1] [a] [emphasis supplied]).
Section 350 (1) (a) remains unchanged today.
The Court of Appeals then remanded the case back to this court for a determination as to whether the shelter allowances that the Commissioner had established previously in 1988 were adequate under the statutory standard. (Jiggetts v. Grinker.)
After a 3½-month trial, this court found that the 1988 shelter allowances did not bear a reasonable relation to the cost of housing in New York City and ordered the Commissioner to "develop and submit to the Secretary of State for promulgation by March 2, 1998 or, on application to the court, by a reasonable date thereafter, a proposed schedule of shelter allowances for [New York City participants in the AFDC program] and any successor program." The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. (See Jiggetts v. Dowling, 261 AD2d 144 [1st Dept 1999].) On October 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the State's motion for leave to appeal. (Jiggetts v. Dowling, 94 NY2d 796 [1999].)
In 1996, Congress replaced the AFDC program with a five-year time-limited program known as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). In 1997, New York State replaced the ADC program with the Family Assistance (FA) program. (See Social Services Law §§ 343-360.) This new state-federal statutory scheme prohibits receipt of funds for more than 60 months during a recipient's lifetime, regardless of need. (See 42 USC § 608 [a] [7] [A].)
For families receiving FA who reach the federal five-year time limit, the New York State Legislature enacted the SNA program. (Social Services Law §§ 157-165.) When a family receiving FA reaches the federal five-year time limit, the family interviews with the requisite local agency. If the family wishes to continue receiving assistance, that agency transfers that family to the SNA program. Under Social Services Law § 157 (1), SNA means:
"allowances pursuant to section one hundred thirty-one-a for all support, maintenance and need, and costs of suitable training in a trade to enable a person to become self-supporting, furnished eligible needy persons in accordance with applicable provisions of law, . . . to persons or their dependents in their abode or habitation whenever possible . . . but does not include . . . family assistance or medical assistance for needy persons granted under titles ten and eleven, respectively, or aid to persons receiving federal supplemental security income payments and/or additional state payments."
Pursuant to Social Services Law § 159, "[s]afety net assistance shall be provided in amounts determined in accordance with article five and, where applicable, section one hundred seventeen . . . ." The amounts are the same for those families who receive shelter payments pursuant to Social Services Law § 350.
SNA recipients receive shelter allowances up to specific maximum amounts depending on the local social services district. In November 2003, the State adopted the following new shelter allowance schedule for families in New York City with children:
Family Size: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+
Maximum Rent: $277 $283 $400 $450 $501 $524 $546
(Verified complaint ¶ 43; see also NY Reg, Feb. 26, 2003, at 13, adopted NY Reg, Aug. 6, 2003, at 36.) Plaintiffs challenge these shelter allowances.
Because this court had found that the 1988 shelter allowances did not bear a reasonable relationship to housing costs in New York City and, in order to avoid the need for repeated intervention motions in this action, this court directed the parties to operate an interim relief system for families with children who face eviction solely because of the inadequacy of the shelter allowance schedule (Jiggetts interim relief). Families with children are eligible for Jiggetts interim relief only if they are facing eviction in housing court based on accrued arrears. According to plaintiffs, as of April 30, 2005, over 12,000 families receive monthly Jiggetts interim relief payments. (Verified complaint ¶ 51.) Until May 1, 2005, the State routinely approved requests for interim relief up to the following amounts:
Household Size: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Allowance: $450 $550 $650 $700 $725 $750 $775
The Jiggetts judgment requires the State to continue to provide interim relief until the State complies with its obligation to promulgate an adequate shelter allowance. In October 2003, this court ordered the State to process interim relief applications for FA and SNA recipients until the court decided whether the new shelter allowance schedule complied with the statutory adequacy standard. However, as explained more fully infra, in July 2005, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that SNA recipients could not challenge the adequacy of their shelter allowances within the context of the Jiggetts case.
The state regulations that created the current shelter allowance, that were effective November 1, 2003, also provide for local service districts to grant shelter allowance supplements while court cases challenging the adequacy of those shelter allowances for families with minor children are pending. As a result, on December 9, 2004, New York State approved a New York City plan to supplement the current shelter allowance pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.3 (a) (3) called the Family Eviction Prevention Supplement program. (Verified complaint ¶ 57.)
The supplements increase Jiggetts interim relief the State previously provided, absent court involvement, as follows:
Household Size: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Allowance: $650 $750 $850 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200
On May 2, 2005, the State issued revised clarifications and a revised application for FEPS. These revisions contain many conditions and qualifications for receipt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palma v.
...whether they were prohibited from placing suggested retail price stickers on bottles of malt liquor. In Brownley v Doar, 11 Misc. 3d 615, 626 (Sup. Ct., NY County 2006), single mothers, who didnot qualify for a rent supplement under a particular program, or who qualified for a supplement th......