Bates v. Toia

Decision Date26 October 1978
Citation45 N.Y.2d 460,382 N.E.2d 1128,410 N.Y.S.2d 265
Parties, 382 N.E.2d 1128 In the Matter of Charles W. BATES, Individually and as the Westchester County Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent, v. Philip L. TOIA, Individually and as the New York State Commissioner of Social Services, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Judge.

We deal here with the validity of State regulations entitling an indigent woman to public assistance on behalf of her unborn child.

Petitioner, in his capacity as Westchester County Commissioner of Social Services, commenced this article 78 proceeding, later converted into an action for a declaratory judgment (CPLR 103, subd. (c)), to have declared invalid certain Department of Social Services regulations. Those regulations (18 NYCRR 352.30(c), 360.5(g), 369.2(a)(1)(i)) permit eligible women to claim recurring Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grants after the fourth month of a medically verified pregnancy.

Special Term held that respondent, the New York State Commissioner of Social Services, had not proceeded illegally in adopting the challenged regulations and, consequently, that the regulations were valid. A closelydivided Appellate Division reversed (60 A.D.2d 459, 463, 401 N.Y.S.2d 298, 301). We now reverse that determination.

The AFDC program is one of the four major categorical assistance plans provided for by the Social Security Act of 1935 (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 301 Et seq.; see Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 408, n. 10, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442). Fifty percent of the program is financed by the Federal Government, the remaining costs being divided equally between the State and the local public welfare district. Although State participation in the AFDC program is essentially voluntary, when a State does elect to participate it is required to submit an AFDC plan to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) for approval by the Secretary (U.S.Code, tit. 42, §§ 601-604; see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 530, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577; Social Services Law, § 358, subd. 1). So long as its plan meets the requirements of the Federal act, a State is given considerable latitude in determining both the standard of need to be employed in ascertaining eligibility for benefits and the level of benefits to be paid to eligible recipients (Rosado v. Wyman, supra, 397 U.S. at p. 408, 90 S.Ct. 1207).

Recognizing that indigent women do not have the means to obtain adequate prenatal care, HEW, through its regulations, permits payment of AFDC benefits to expectant mothers "with respect to an unborn child when the fact of pregnancy has been determined by medical diagnosis" (45 CFR 233.90(c)(2) (ii)). The commissioner has adopted this voluntary portion of the AFDC program. Thus, the commissioner has determined by regulation: "In determining the net available income of a family household in which there is a pregnant woman, such family household shall be considered as increased by one person from the fourth month of pregnancy which has been medically verified" (18 NYCRR 360.5(g)). The import of the State regulations is manifest. After the fourth month of a medically verified pregnancy, an unborn child is treated as a dependent child and is entitled to the same assistance under the AFDC program as is afforded a dependent child after birth (18 NYCRR 352.2(b), 369.1(b), 369.2(a)(1), (f)(4)(iv), 369.3(a)(5); see Matter of Rankin v. Lavine, 50 A.D.2d 1091, 1092, 376 N.Y.S.2d 355, 357, affd. 41 N.Y.2d 911, 394 N.Y.S.2d 618, 363 N.E.2d 343).

Petitioner mounts his assault against the challenged regulations on two fronts. First, he asserts that HEW is without authority to approve Federal participation and thus provide Federal funds to those States electing to grant AFDC benefits to the unborn. Reliance is placed principally upon Burns v. Alcala, 420 U.S. 575, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 469), wherein the Supreme Court held that unborn children are not included within the definition of "dependent child" in the Social Security Act (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 602) and that States are therefore not required to make AFDC benefits available to pregnant women (420 U.S. at pp. 577-578, 95 S.Ct. 1180, Supra ; see, also, Wisdom v. Norton, 2 Cir., 507 F.2d 750, 755, reh. den. 2 Cir. 520 F.2d 938). Hence petitioner contends that since State statutes and regulations pertaining to AFDC benefits must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal law (see Matter of Boines v. Lavine, 44 A.D.2d 765, 766, 354 N.Y.S.2d 252, 253, mot. for lv. to app. den. 34 N.Y.2d 519, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 316 N.E.2d 884, cert. den. 419 U.S. 1040, 95 S.Ct. 528, 42 L.Ed.2d 317) and since Federal law does not authorize such expenditures on behalf of unborn children, the challenged regulations are invalid.

There is, however, a fatal flaw in petitioner's argument. The Burns court held only that States are not required to provide AFDC benefits to pregnant women for their unborn children. It left open the option afforded the States to make Federally funded AFDC benefits available for assistance to pregnant women on behalf of their unborn children (420 U.S. at pp. 584-586, 95 S.Ct. 1180, Supra ; see Matter of Rankin v. Lavine, 41 N.Y.2d 911, 912, 394 N.Y.S.2d 618, 619, 363 N.E.2d 343, Supra ; see, generally, Note, Eligibility of the Unborn for AFDC Benefits: The Statutory and Constitutional Issues, 54 Boston U.L.Rev. 945). There being no conflict between the challenged regulations and Federal law, this argument must fail.

Petitioner's second prong of attack lies in his assertion that respondent State commissioner is without authority under the Social Services Law to promulgate the challenged regulations. In this regard, we note initially that our scope of review is rather limited. So long as the construction given the relevant statutes by the commissioner in promulgating these regulations is not irrational or arbitrary, judicial inquiry is foreclosed (Matter of Ward v. Nyquist, 43 N.Y.2d 57, 63, 400 N.Y.S.2d 757, 760, 371 N.E.2d 477, 480; Matter of Howard v. Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434, 438, 322 N.Y.S.2d 683, 685, 271 N.E.2d 528, 529). But, while the scope of our review may be limited, it is not toothless, and administrative rules are not judicially approved in a Pro forma manner. The Legislature may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 22 Octubre 1991
    ...464, 517 N.E.2d 1350; Matter of Nicholas v. Kahn, supra, 47 N.Y.2d at 31, 416 N.Y.S.2d 565, 389 N.E.2d 1086; Matter of Bates v. Toia, 45 N.Y.2d 460, 464, 410 N.Y.S.2d 265, 382 N.E.2d The Legislature is not required in its enactments to supply agencies with rigid marching orders, especially ......
  • Boreali v. Axelrod
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 25 Noviembre 1987
    ...... (Accord, Matter of County of Oneida v. Berle, 49 N.Y.2d 515, 427 N.Y.S.2d 407, 404 N.E.2d 133; Matter of Bates v. Toia, 45 N.Y.2d 460, 464, 410 N.Y.S.2d 265, 382 N.E.2d 1128; Matter of City of Utica v. Water Pollution Control Bd., 5 N.Y.2d 164, 182 N.Y.S.2d ......
  • N.Y.S. Police Investigators Ass'n v. State, 908458-19
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 10 Febrero 2021
    ...( 71 Misc.3d 1023 Kuppersmith v. Dowling , 93 N.Y.2d 90, 96, 688 N.Y.S.2d 96, 710 N.E.2d 660 [1999], citing Matter of Bates v. Toia , 45 N.Y.2d 460, 464, 410 N.Y.S.2d 265, 382 N.E.2d 1128 [1978] ). 146 N.Y.S.3d 734 The Legislature "may constitutionally delegate rule-making authority to an a......
  • Festa v. Leshen
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 17 Enero 1989
    ...of Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v. Gliedman, 57 N.Y.2d 588, 595, 457 N.Y.S.2d 466, 443 N.E.2d 940; Matter of Bates v. Toia, 45 N.Y.2d 460, 464, 410 N.Y.S.2d 265, 382 N.E.2d 1128 (1978); Matter of Lower Manhattan Loft Tenants v. New York City Loft Bd., supra, 104 A.D.2d at 225, 482 N.Y.S.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT