Casey v. New York State Dept. of Social Services
| Decision Date | 07 February 1977 |
| Citation | 56 A.D.2d 72,391 N.Y.S.2d 173 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of Mary Elizabeth CASEY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES and County of Westchester Department of Social Services, Appellants. |
Murray B. Schneps, New York City, for respondent.
Before COHALAN, Acting P.J., and RABIN, SHAPIRO and O'CONNOR, JJ.
The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the appellants to consider and determine her eligibility for New York State supplementary income, available under title 6 of article 5 of the Social Services Law. The Special Term granted her request to the extent of directing the appellants to determine petitioner's application on the record made at the fair hearing. We reverse and dismiss the petition.
The petitioner is a 27-year-old mentally retarded woman. She resided with her parents in Westchester County since the age of two. For at least the last eight years she has attended the Martha Lloyd School, a residential facility for retarded women, which is located in Troy, Pennsylvania. During holidays and vacations she always returns to her parents' home where she has her own room. She only keeps seasonal clothing at the Pennsylvania school; her parents have testified that they never intended to have petitioner become a permanent resident of the school.
In 1974 petitioner filed an application with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to receive Federal supplemental security income pursuant to title XVI of the Social Security Act, as well as an additional supplementary payment from the State of Pennsylvania. The Social Security Administration, a bureau of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, determined that petitioner was a disabled individual entitled to receive these payments. The award of these benefits was predicated upon petitioner's residence in the State of Pennsylvania.
In April, 1975 petitioner applied to the Westchester County Department of Social Services for a New York State supplemental payment, analogous to the Pennsylvania supplemental payment she was already receiving. On June 5, 1975 the application was denied on the ground that petitioner was not a New York State resident attending a certified facility located within New York State. This determination was appealed to the New York State Department of Social Services and a State fair hearing was conducted on September 17, 1975. The State Commissioner affirmed the denial of petitioner's application, but stated as his basis: 'The Westchester County Department of Social Services lacks authority to determine whether appellant is entitled to additional state payments from the State of New York.' This was so because, pursuant to an agreement entered into between the State of New York and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, under the authority of section 211 of the Social Services On March 26, 1976 petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to annul the Commissioner's determination.
Law, only the Secretary had the authority to determine petitioner's eligibility for supplemental State income payments.
Petitioner takes the position that it is New York State which is obligated to determine her eligibility for supplemental State income payments available under title 6 of the Social Services Law. She satisfies the residency and other requirements of title 6. It was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion to refuse to consider her application for supplemental State benefits.
Appellants contend that they do not have the authority to consider petitioner's application. An agreement between New York State and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare vests the sole power to determine eligibility for the State supplemental payments with the Secretary. Petitioner has submitted her application to the wrong party.
The Special Term annulled the determination and directed the appellants to consider and pass upon the petitioner's application. It stated:
'The legislature hereby declar its commitment to meeting the income needs of * * * disabled persons who are receiving basic supplemental security income benefits * * * in order to fully employ available federal aid for the benefit of such persons residing in this state, there is hereby established a state-wide program of additional state payments for * * * disabled persons.'
who are receiving or who would but for their income be eligible to receive, supplemental security income benefits, and who reside or are found in such district, subject to supervision by the state and subject to reimbursement by the state in an amount equal to one-half of such payments made by such district * * *
'(a) Any cash payments which are made by a State (or political subdivision thereof) on a regular basis to individuals who are receiving benefits under this subchapter or who would but for their income be eligible to receive benefits under this subchapter, as assistance based on need in supplementation of such benefits (as determined by the Secretary), shall be excluded under section 1382a(b)(6) of this title in determining the income of such individuals for purposes of this subchapter and the Secretary and such State may enter into an agreement which satisfies subsection (b) of this section under which the Secretary will, on behalf of such State (or subdivision) make such supplementary payments to all such individuals.
'Agreement between Secretary and State; contents
'(b) Any agreement between the Secretary and a State entered into under subsection (a) of this section shall provide--
'(1) that such payments will be made * * * to all individuals residing in such State (or subdivision) who are receiving benefits under this subchapter, and
'(2) such other rules with respect to eligibility for or amount of the supplementary payments, and such procedural or other general administrative provisions, as the Secretary finds necessary * * * to achieve efficient and effective administration of both the program which he conducts under this subchapter and the optional State supplementation.'
Pursuant to the authority contained in section 211 of the Social Services Law and section 1382e of title 42 of the United States Code, the State of New York and the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare entered into an agreement to govern their respective roles in distributing supplemental income benefits. The pertinent provisions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calkins v. Blum
...indeed applies, for the State of New York provides state supplements. See, e. g., N.Y.Soc.Serv.Law § 207; In re Casey, 56 A.D.2d 72, 391 N.Y.S.2d 173 (2d Dep't 1977). 13 See note 11 14 The Court has been informed that the plaintiffs Kenneth and Yvonne Calkins have separated. Accordingly, wh......
-
FRERKS BY FRERKS v. Shalala
...of individuals for such payments. See New York State Social Services Law § 211(1); Casey v. New York State Department of Social Services, 56 A.D.2d 72, 391 N.Y.S.2d 173, 176 (2d Dept.1977). In addition to SSI, the federal Medicaid program, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., provides medical assistan......
-
Johnson v. Wing, 97 Civ. 6962(CLB).
...1382e shifts the burden of administering the State OSS payments to the federal government. Casey v. New York State Dep't of Social Servs., 56 A.D.2d 72, 391 N.Y.S.2d 173 (2d Dep't 1977). Even if Ms. Johnson could state a claim under § 1382e it would fail because the state regulations for te......
-
Gilchrist v. Califano
...state supplementary benefits; such questions must be presented through the HEW appeals system. Casey v. New York State Dept. of Social Services, 56 A.D.2d 72, 391 N.Y.S.2d 173 (2d Dept. 1977). The state courts remain open to plaintiffs, however, where they challenge on its face a state stat......