Goodwin v. Perales
| Decision Date | 06 June 1996 |
| Parties | , 669 N.E.2d 234 Connie GOODWIN, Respondent, v. Cesar A. PERALES, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Can New York require that applicants for emergency public assistance benefits to pay utility bills be "tenants of record" (meaning that they have primary responsibility for making monthly rent or mortgage payments on the dwelling units for which they seek public funds)? We conclude that New York's tenant of record requirement accords with both the Federally funded Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) (42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq.; Social Services Law § 97) and New York's own State-funded emergency energy program for recipients of public assistance (Social Services Law § 131-s). We therefore reverse the judgment appealed from and the orders of the Appellate Division that declared the regulations invalid.
Since 1988, plaintiff Connie Goodwin has lived with her three teenage daughters and John Potter (not the girls' father) in a single-family home in Addison, New York. As owner of the house, Potter is responsible for making all mortgage, tax and insurance payments on the property. Plaintiff, in turn, pays Potter $400 in monthly rent which she now receives under an Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant and other public assistance allowances (18 NYCRR part 352). According to a "Landlord Verification" form certified by Potter and submitted by plaintiff as part of her public assistance application, her rent includes all utilities such as heat, electricity, gas and water. Thus, although Potter is legally responsible for providing plaintiff with electricity, the account with the local utility company at Potter's home is listed in plaintiff's--not Potter's--name.
Having fallen behind on electricity payments and in default of an earlier deferred payment plan with the local utility company, plaintiff in late November 1990 received a final termination notice advising her that electric service would be shut off on December 6 due to an unpaid bill of approximately $450. Threatened by the loss of heat as a result of a shutoff and unable to negotiate a new repayment plan with the utility company, plaintiff on January 4, 1991 applied to defendant Department of Social Services (DSS) for Federal HEAP and New York emergency energy assistance benefits. 1
Plaintiff's application was denied on the ground that DSS regulations require all applicants for Federal and State utility benefits to be both the tenant of record and the customer of record in order to receive funds (see, 18 NYCRR 393.4, 352.5). Although plaintiff clearly satisfied the customer of record criterion, she was not a tenant of record under DSS' definition of that term. As stated in the Notice of Denial:
After DSS adhered to its original determination on administrative appeal, plaintiff filed her complaint in this lawsuit challenging the tenant of record requirement on statutory and constitutional grounds and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff's primary contention is that DSS exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the tenant of record requirement under applicable Federal and State law which, according to plaintiff, provides merely that benefits be provided to those who are in need of them. Plaintiff also argues that the tenant of record requirement violates her constitutional rights to equal protection of the law by denying her benefits which would otherwise be available if she were married.
In separate orders issued 10 months apart resolving plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the trial court upheld the tenant of record requirement under the Federal HEAP program, while invalidating it under New York's emergency energy assistance program. Upon consolidation of the orders, the Appellate Division, agreeing with the trial court in part, concluded that the tenant of record requirement was invalid under both the Federal and State energy assistance programs (197 A.D.2d 214, 612 N.Y.S.2d 715). The Appellate Division remitted the matter for reconsideration of plaintiff's application for benefits and for a hearing on her request for costs and attorney's fees. 2 Neither court reached the merits of plaintiff's constitutional claims.
Having dismissed an earlier notice of appeal on the ground that no substantial constitutional question was involved and then having granted leave to appeal, we now reverse.
New York currently administers two parallel programs for providing emergency assistance to needy persons threatened with imminent loss of utility service as a result of financial hardship. The programs are separately funded--one by the Federal Government, one by the State. Each originates from a separate statutory scheme and each has been implemented by DSS with distinct sets of administrative regulations. We thus examine each separately.
The Federally funded Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as HEAP, had its origins during the beginning of the Reagan administration's effort "to allocate funds to the states in the form of block grants so that they could be used efficiently in meeting the differing needs of local communities" (Rodriguez v. Cuomo, 953 F.2d 33, 38). Acting in this spirit as part of the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, Congress decided to repeal an earlier low-income energy assistance statute (42 U.S.C. §§ 8601-8612 [added by PubL 96-223] and "replace[ ] it with a fiscally trimmer version * * * which removed many of the federal regulations that had controlled the distribution of federal energy assistance funds" (Clifford v. Janklow, 733 F.2d 534, 536).
Under the resulting legislation, known as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (LIHEAA) (42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq.), Congress was to make block grants of Federal dollars to qualified States which were then to distribute the funds "to assist low-income households * * * in meeting their immediate home energy needs" (42 U.S.C. § 8621[a]. In keeping with the block grant format, Congress authorized States like New York that participate in HEAP to submit their own plans to administer and distribute the Federal funds for approval by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (42 U.S.C. § 8624[a]. In general, each State's plan must agree to "provide, in a timely manner, that the highest level of assistance will be furnished to those households which have the lowest incomes and the highest energy costs or needs in relation to income" (42 U.S.C. § 8624[b][5].
A household is eligible to receive HEAP benefits if it receives an AFDC grant, food stamps or other forms of public assistance or its combined income does not exceed 150% of the poverty line or 60% of a State's median income (42 U.S.C. § 8624[b][2]. In addition, certain individuals--such as those who are in an institution which already receives Social Security benefits--are specifically excluded from receiving HEAP benefits (42 U.S.C. § 8624[i].
Beyond those relatively broad parameters, however, the LIHEAA expressly delegates to the States the responsibility for formulating criteria as to "the eligibility requirements to be used * * * for each type of assistance to be provided" (42 U.S.C. § 8624[c][1][A]. The significance of such delegation is highlighted by the applicable Department of Health and Human Services regulations which provide that (45 C.F.R. 96.50[e]. "So long as minimal requirements established under the Act are met, the states are free to design their own programs" (Rodriguez v. Cuomo, 953 F.2d 33, 34).
Acting upon this delegation as well as under provisions of State law (see, Social Services Law § 97[2] ), New York promulgated regulations establishing eligibility criteria for recipients of HEAP funds (18 NYCRR 393.4). To further assist in the administration of New York's HEAP program, DSS also issued various administrative directives and manuals with specific instructions to be used by local social services districts when responding to HEAP applications (see, 87 ADM-57, 1990 NY St DSS HEAP Manual).
At issue here is the DSS regulation, initially filed as an emergency measure effective February 27, 1989, which provides that in order to be eligible for emergency HEAP benefits,
Because plaintiff contributes her monthly rent to John Potter, the person responsible for making mortgage payments, she does not meet this tenant of record requirement and challenges it as a violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juarez v. N.Y.S. Office of Victim Servs.
...778 N.Y.S.2d 412, 810 N.E.2d 864 [2004] ; see also Kuppersmith, 93 N.Y.2d at 96, 688 N.Y.S.2d 96, 710 N.E.2d 660 ; Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383, 395, 646 N.Y.S.2d 300, 669 N.E.2d 234 [1996] ; Matter of City of New York v. State of N.Y. Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92–93, 416 N.Y......
-
Juarez v. N.Y.S. Office of Victim Servs.
...412, 810 N.E.2d 864 [2004] ; see also Kuppersmith, 93 N.Y.2d at 96, 688 N.Y.S.2d 96, 710 N.E.2d 660 ; Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383, 395, 646 N.Y.S.2d 300, 669 N.E.2d 234 [1996] ; Matter of City of New York v. State of N.Y. Commn. on Cable Tel., 47 N.Y.2d 89, 92–93, 416 N.Y.S.2d 786, 39......
-
Leadingage N.Y., Inc. v. Shah
...; see Matter of Acevedo v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs. , 29 N.Y.3d at 215, 54 N.Y.S.3d 614, 77 N.E.3d 331 ; Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383, 395, 646 N.Y.S.2d 300, 669 N.E.2d 234 [1996] ). As determined by the Second Department, which has upheld 10 NYCRR part 1002 as constitutiona......
-
N.Y. Indep. Contractors Alliance ex rel. Members v. Liu
...529;Soho Alliance v. New York State Liq. Auth., 32 A.D.3d 363, 821 N.Y.S.2d 31 (1st Dep't 2006). See Goodwin v. Perales, 88 N.Y.2d 383, 392, 646 N.Y.S.2d 300, 669 N.E.2d 234 (1996). In sum, Labor Law § 220(6) does not exclude other means or grounds for contesting the Comptroller's determina......
-
The development of independent New York constitutional jurisprudence in Chief Judge Kaye's judicial opinions: an empirical study.
...v. Ramos 685 N.E.2d 492 1997 MP A People v. Ramos 685 N.E.2d 492 1997 MP A People v. Nieves 683 N.E.2d 764 1997 MP A Goodwin v. Perales 669 N.E.2d 234 1996 MP F People v. Page 665 N.E.2d 1041 1996 S NY People v. Wright 658 N.E.2d 1009 1995 MP F People v. Schaffer 657 N.E.2d 1305 1995 MP A P......