Barton v. Lavine
| Decision Date | 22 December 1975 |
| Citation | 381 N.Y.S.2d 867,38 N.Y.2d 785,345 N.E.2d 339 |
| Parties | , 345 N.E.2d 339 In the Matter of Susan BARTON, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Clint Young, Her Minor Ward, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. Abe LAVINE, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, and John Fahey, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the County of Albany, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
K. Wade Eaton and Rene H. Reixach, Jr., Rochester, for appellant-respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Alan W. Rubenstein and Jean M. Coon, Albany, of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Robert P. Roche, County Atty., Albany (Philip R. Murray and Joseph F. Kehoe, Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
The amendment to the Social Security Act in issue here (Public Law 92--603; 86 U.S.Stat. 1462, 1492), is plainly effective as of January 1, 1973. It would have been appropriate to resort to legislative history for clarification were the effective date ambiguous upon the face of the statute. 'January 1, 1973' could scarcely be more unambiguous. We decline the invitation to sit as a committee on revision. (Cf. Matter of Taylor v. Sise, 33 N.Y.2d 357, 363, 352 N.Y.S.2d 924, 308 N.E.2d 442; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan, 9 N.Y.2d 293, 304, 213 N.Y.S.2d 729, 174 N.E.2d 71; Meltzer v. Koenigsberg, 302 N.Y. 523, 525, 99 N.E.2d 679.)
If we conclude that '1973' means precisely what it says, in the amendment, then appellant clearly was denied benefits to which she was entitled from August of 1973, when she and her nephew were made subject to the Table for Cooperative Budgeting (18 NYCRR 352.2(e)(1)), until such time as the table ceased to be applied to her by virtue of a reorganization of aid programs by the Federal and State governments. The fact that appellant has already received the benefits she sues for does not render her case moot; she obtained these benefits under the terms of a stay pending this litigation and, as Special Term noted below, she has a right to a determination that she is entitled to keep those payments. The legal issue she raises is unchanged.
We do not find a class action appropriate in these circumstances.
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division, 46 A.D.2d 981, 363 N.Y.S.2d 556, should be affirmed.
COOKE, J., taking no part.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martinez v. Maher
...the AFDC standard of need to be "precisely what is forbidden by 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(24)." Id. at 12. And in Barton v. Lavine, 38 N.Y.2d 785, 345 N.E.2d 339, 381 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 985, 96 S.Ct. 2191, 48 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), the New York Court of Appeals held that § 60......
-
Leone v. Blum
...while precluding the proration of ADC based on the presence of an SSI beneficiary in the household (accord Matter of Barton v. Lavine, 38 N.Y.2d 785, 381 N.Y.S.2d 867, 345 N.E.2d 339; Matter of Schimmel v. Reed, 50 A.D.2d 1085, 377 N.Y.S.2d 313, affd. 40 N.Y.2d 887, 389 N.Y.S.2d 361, 357 N.......
-
Harradine v. Board of Sup'rs of Orleans County
...were pending when the statute became effective (see, Matter of Barton v. Lavine, 54 A.D.2d 350, 389 N.Y.S.2d 416, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 785, 381 N.Y.S.2d 867, 345 N.E.2d 339; cf. Matter of Shook v. Lavine, 49 A.D.2d 238, 374 N.Y.S.2d 187). Generally statutes are to be construed as prospective in ......
-
Daniel C., Matter of
...prior history will be rejected in favor of the purportedly explicit statement of the statute (see, e.g., Matter of Barton v. Lavine, 38 N.Y.2d 785, [381 N.Y.S.2d 867, 345 N.E.2d 339] ). Then it is often said with more pious solemnity than accuracy, that the clarity of the statute precludes ......