Hayes v. Human Resources Administration of City of New York, 927

Decision Date05 May 1981
Docket NumberD,No. 927,927
Citation648 F.2d 110
PartiesMs. Barbara HAYES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, Stanley Brezenoff, Commissioner et al., Defendants-Appellants, and City University of New York, a body corporate, Robert J. Kibbee, Chancellor, et al., Defendants. Anna VILLANUEVA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Patricia Roberts Harris, as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendants. Carmen WARREN and Michelle Warren, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Stanley BREZENOFF, individually and as Commissioner, et al., Defendants- Appellants, and Patricia Roberts Harris, individually and as Secretary, et al., Defendants. ocket 80-6369.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 110

648 F.2d 110
Ms. Barbara HAYES et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK,
Stanley Brezenoff, Commissioner et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
City University of New York, a body corporate, Robert J.
Kibbee, Chancellor, et al., Defendants.
Anna VILLANUEVA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Barbara BLUM, as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Social Services, et al., Defendants-Appellants,
and
Patricia Roberts Harris, as Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Resources, Defendants.
Carmen WARREN and Michelle Warren, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Stanley BREZENOFF, individually and as Commissioner, et al.,
Defendants- Appellants,
and
Patricia Roberts Harris, individually and as Secretary, et
al., Defendants.
No. 927, Docket 80-6369.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Feb. 19, 1981.
Decided May 5, 1981.

Page 111

Robert A. Forte, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N. Y., George D. Zuckerman, New York City, of counsel) for State defendants-appellants.

David B. Rigney, Gen. Counsel, New York City (CUNY, Laura Blank, New York City, of counsel) for defendant-appellee, the City University of New York.

George E. Hairston, New York City (N.A.A.C.P.) for plaintiffs-appellees Barbara Hayes, Cerise Jones, Marion Brown, Regina Campbell.

John C. Gray, Jr., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Brooklyn Legal Services Corp., Gretchen L. Sprague, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel) for plaintiff-appellee Anna Villaneuva.

Before Van GRAAFEILAND and MESKILL, Circuit Judges, and STEWART, District Judge. *

STEWART, District Judge:

The crux of the issue presented in this case is whether the definition of "necessary educational costs" for students who receive grants under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children ("AFDC") program is to be determined pursuant to federal regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Education under the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Pub.L. 89-329, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070-1089 ("Higher Education Act") or by the New York State Department of Social Services ("DSS") in accordance with its own more restrictive definition of need. The district court below, in a thorough and thoughtful opinion, held that DSS's administrative directive instituting, inter alia, the practice of recalculating an AFDC student's educational expenses pursuant to its own standard of need interfered with controlling federal statutes and regulations and is thus invalid. For reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court and elaborated on below, the decision and order enjoining the challenged policy and practice is affirmed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs-appellees in this consolidated action are recipients of grants under two separate but intersecting programs. They receive state and federal educational assistance grants coordinated under the Higher Education Act and implementing regulations, and financial assistance under Title IV of the Social Security Act, known as AFDC, 42 U.S.C. §§ 601-644. Plaintiffs in Hayes v. City University of New York are City University of New York ("CUNY") students who receive AFDC grants as well as SEEK (the Search for Education, Elevation and Knowledge program) and CD (the College Discovery Program) stipends. The named plaintiff in Villanueva v. Harris is an AFDC recipient whose benefits are reduced because of federal and state educational assistance received by her daughter, a student at CUNY. Plaintiffs in Warren v. Brezenoff are a CUNY student who receives educational assistance pursuant to the Higher Education Act and her mother, an AFDC recipient whose family's grant is reduced because of the daughter's educational grants. The three cases were consolidated before Judge Sofaer, and present the same issues concerning the validity of the challenged administrative directive. The former Department of Health, Education and Welfare ("HEW"), now the Department of Health and Human Services and a defendant in this action, joins in appellees' position in this action, as does CUNY.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act

The Higher Education Act was enacted in large part to provide financial assistance to students "of exceptional need who, for lack of such a grant, would be unable to attain the benefits of a post-secondary

Page 112

education" and to provide incentives for qualified students from low income families to obtain post-secondary education. 20 U.S.C. § 1070(a). See 1965 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News 4053-4067. The Act was intended to provide "the highest level of coordination among all types and levels of student assistance programs," including federal, state and private programs. Id. at 4055.

To this end, the Commissioner of Education ("Commissioner") is charged with the responsibility of carrying out programs to achieve the goals of the Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1070. However, the district court noted:

the individual educational institutions play the critical role in the federal educational assistance system. Acting pursuant to federal regulations, each participating institution administers the federal programs for its students by constructing individual aid packages. To participate in the federal programs, the institution must agree to comply with governing statutes and regulations.

80 Civ. 2613, 503 F.Supp. 946, 949 (S.D.N.Y.1980). See 45 C.F.R. §§ 174.14, 175.14, 176.14.

For the individuals constituting the class of plaintiffs in the instant action, the individual financial aid package consists of a composite of grants from different sources. The participating educational institution is obligated to apply standards of need, eligibility and education costs established by the Commissioner for these programs. Federal regulations also specify the sources of income that must be taken into account in calculating the student's available income and resources. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 174.14, 175.14, 176.14. The amount of the student's educational grants is the difference between the educational cost and expected family contribution, determined in accordance with methods or figures prescribed by the Commissioner. Id. §§ 174.12, 174.13, 175.12, 175.13, 176.12, 176.13. This amount includes AFDC benefits in the calculation of available resources.

The structure of the educational assistance program was set forth in the opinion of the district court:

The financial aid package is built upon the so-called Basic Grant. Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program ("BEOG"), 20 U.S.C. § 1070a; 45 C.F.R. Part 190 (1979). Determining the amount of that grant entails two steps. First, the student applies for aid to the Commissioner of Education. The Commissioner calculates the applicant's expected family contribution and issues a student eligibility report, which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • U.S. v. Bellard
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 23 Abril 1982
    ... ... a careful and comprehensive design, Hayes v. Human Resources Administration of the City of New York, 648 F.2d 110, 111-12 (2d Cir. 1981); American ... ...
  • Common Cause/N.Y. v. Brehm
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 2018
  • Turner v. Perales
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 21 Septiembre 1988
    ... ... , individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, and Rita B ... in effect provides the tenant with the resources" to pay the utilities directly ...       \xC2" ... amount of responsibility in the administration of their housing programs. 42 U.S.C. § 1437 ... that the Second Circuit decision in Hayes v. Human Resources Administration, 648 F.2d 110 ... v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70, 33 S.Ct. 441, ... ...
  • Mohammed v. Reno
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 24 Octubre 2002
    ... ... Naturalization Service; Edward McElroy, New York District Director, Immigration and Naturalization ... been originated by former Judge Sofaer in Hayes v. City University of New York, 503 F.Supp. 946, ... Hayes v. Human Resources Administration, 648 F.2d 110 (2d ... ...
  • 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