Tucker v. Toia

• Decision Date: 10 November 1977
• Citation: 43 N.Y.2d 1,400 N.Y.S.2d 728,371 N.E.2d 449
• Parties: , 371 N.E.2d 449 Angela TUCKER et al., Respondents, v. Philip L. TOIA, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 728

400 N.Y.S.2d 728

43 N.Y.2d 1, 371 N.E.2d 449

Angela TUCKER et al., Respondents, v. Philip L. TOIA, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 10, 1977.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Clifford A. Royael and Jean M. Coon, Albany, of counsel), for appellant.

K. Wade Eaton, Steven L. Brown, Rene H. Reixach, Jr., and David W. Beier, III, Rochester, for respondents.

Marttie L. Thompson, Michael A. O'Connor, Ira S. Bezoza, New York City, and Cynthia Mann, Brooklyn, for Community Action for Legal Services, Inc., and another, amici curiae.

Joseph B. Robison and Stephen M. Jacoby, New York City, for American Jewish Congress, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GABRIELLI, Judge.

The Commissioner of the State Department of Social Services appeals directly to this court, pursuant to CPLR 5601 (subd. (b), par. 2), from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Smith, J.), declaring section 15 of chapter 76 of the Laws of 1976 (now a part of Social Services Law, § 158), to be unconstitutional, and enjoining its implementation and enforcement. We affirm the judgment appealed from, on the ground that the challenged section constitutes a substantive violation of section 1 of article XVII of the New York State Constitution.

New York residents under the age of 21 who are in need of public assistance normally receive aid through either the Federally subsidized Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) (Social Services Law, §§ 343-362), or the State's broad Home Relief Program (Social Services Law, §§ 157-166). The determination of which program is applicable in a particular instance is based on whether the needy individual under 21 is residing with either a parent or a legally responsible relative. If he is residing with such a person, he is eligible for AFDC, but not home relief, whereas if he is not residing with such a person, entitlement to benefits stems from the home relief program and not AFDC.

Section 15 of chapter 76 of the Laws of 1976 amended subdivision (a) of section 158 of the Social Services Law, the section which determines eligibility for home relief. As amended, the statute provides that home relief is not to be provided to a person under the age of 21 who does not live with a parent or legally responsible relative, unless and until the applicant commences a support proceeding against any such parent or relative and an order of disposition is obtained in that support proceeding. ^* Prior to the enactment of section 15, no such limitation was imposed upon a needy young person's right to public assistance. Rather, the public welfare authorities were subrogated to whatever right the recipient might have to support from a parent or responsible relative (see Social Services Law, § 101 et seq.; Family Ct. Act, § 415). Under that system, a person under the age of 21, whether or not residing with a parent or responsible relative, was entitled to public assistance upon proof of need, regardless of the existence of a parent or responsible relative, and it was left to the State to seek to recoup its welfare expenditures via a support proceeding against any such parent or relative. This is the method which was used in both AFDC and home relief cases prior to adoption of the section under attack and it is of interest to note that it is the method still used in AFDC cases.

Plaintiffs in this action are three individuals under the age of 21 who are not living with a parent or responsible relative, and are thus eligible only for home relief, not for AFDC. They are concededly needy and, prior to the effective date of section 15, they would have been and were entitled to home relief, having met all requisite criteria.

One of the plaintiffs was 18 years old at the time this action was commenced. His father had abandoned his mother before plaintiff's birth, and his whereabouts are unknown. Until 1976, the son had lived with his mother, and was receiving an AFDC grant. His mother was then committed to a State hospital due to mental illness and, as a result, the son became ineligible for AFDC. Although he ultimately obtained a final disposition in a support proceeding against his mother in an attempt to satisfy section 15, he was denied home relief on the ground that he had not obtained a final disposition in a support proceeding against his missing father.

A second plaintiff was 19 years old, pregnant, and living alone when this action was commenced. Her mother was deceased, and her father was living in Alabama. Her sole source of income was home relief. On October 12, 1976, she was notified that all public assistance would be terminated in eight days unless she could produce within that time a court order of disposition in a support proceeding against her father.

A third plaintiff was an 18 year old, unemployed, high school graduate when this action was commenced. Prior to August, 1976 she lived with her mother and five siblings on an AFDC grant. She then left home due to family difficulties, and ultimately applied for home relief. Her application was denied because of her failure to obtain an order of disposition in a support proceeding against her father, who had disappeared some 10 years ago.

Standing uncontroverted is the accepted fact and reality that in each of these cases in order to obtain the required "disposition", it would take from several weeks to several months, during which time no public assistance would be available to these needy young people. Indeed, in the third plaintiff's case, Family Court officials originally refused to accept her support petition because she was unable to provide an address for her missing father. In the second mentioned case, Family Court officials estimated that since her father was in Alabama and any support proceeding would have to be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law, art. 3-A), it would take a minimum of 10 weeks to obtain a disposition. In certain areas of the State even greater delays are normal, and, in fact, it has been estimated that in New York City it will often take from 10 to 12 months to obtain a "disposition" in such a support proceeding. Under the challenged statute, the plaintiffs and others in similar situations are, of course, denied any public assistance during this period, although they meet all criteria for measuring need, solely on the basis of their failure to obtain a disposition. Since they do meet the need criteria, and are thus a fortiori unable to support themselves without public aid, one must wonder how they are to survive this period of waiting for an overcrowded Family Court system to process their often quite futile support petitions.

In New York State, the provision for assistance to the needy is not a matter of legislative grace; rather, it is specifically mandated by our Constitution. Section 1 of article XVII of the New York State Constitution declares: "The aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state and by such of its subdivisions, and in such manner and by such means, as the legislature may from time to time determine". This provision was adopted in 1938, in the aftermath of the great depression, and was intended to serve two functions: First, it was felt to be necessary to sustain from constitutional attack the social welfare programs first created by the State during that period (cf. People v....