Harris v. Wyman

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: JOSEPH LIFF
• Citation: Harris v. Wyman, 304 N.Y.S.2d 423, 60 Misc.2d 1076 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969)
• Decision Date: 07 October 1969
• Parties: Brenda HARRIS, individually and on behalf of her minor children and on behalf of all other persons residing in this county similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. George K. WYMAN, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services and Joseph S. Barbaro, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, Defendants.

Page 423

304 N.Y.S.2d 423

60 Misc.2d 1076

Brenda HARRIS, individually and on behalf of her minor children and on behalf of all other persons residing in this county similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. George K. WYMAN, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services and Joseph S. Barbaro, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County.

Oct. 7, 1969.

Allen Redlich, Mineola, for plaintiffs Nassau County Law Services Committee, Inc.; Carl Jay Nathanson, Freeport, of counsel.

Morris H. Schneider, County Atty. of Nassau County, Mineola, for defendant Joseph S. Barbaro; Morton M. Meltzer, North Hyde Park, of counsel.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of State of New York, New York City, for defendant George K. Wyman; Steven M. Hochberg, New York City, of counsel.

JOSEPH LIFF, Justice.

Plaintiff brings this action for herself and her minor children 'and on behalf of all other persons residing in this county similarly situated' seeking a judgment declaring unconstitutional § 139--a of the Social Services Law (as amended by the laws of 1969, ch. 184, § 8, eff. May 1, 1969). That statute directs that any person who applies for assistance within one year after arriving in the State is presumed to have come here for the purpose of receiving public assistance and shall be denied such assistance unless the applicant should establish by clear and convincing proof that the reason for coming into the State was not for the purpose of obtaining public assistance and care. Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants, the Commissioners of the Social Services Departments of New York State and of Nassau County from enforcing the statute pending a final determination of the action. The relief requested was granted in a similar instance by Mr. Justice Albert recently (Nuckel v. Wyman, 61 Misc.2d 26, 304 N.Y.S.2d 507) and the instant proceeding was begun since the date of that decision. In Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, statutes which made persons who resided in the area for less than a year ineligible for benefit were declared to be unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of law. Thus, this case is not one of novel impression and apparently the defendants in spite of the decisions have continued to apply § 139--a, supra.

Since this matter was submitted a constitutional court in the United States District Court in actions pending in the Southern and Northern Districts of New York, has ruled that the New York statute is unconstitutional and may not be enforced (Gaddis et al. v. Wyman (Bowens v. Wyman) 304 F.Supp. 717).

Plaintiff should have the relief which she seeks for herself.

One other question remains for our consideration and that is whether or not the order herein should apply to all persons situated similarly to the plaintiff; that is, should it be an order affecting a class. Our § 1005(a) CULR, while not as comprehensive as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, should be employed here. In Gaddis and Bowens (supra), the State Commissioner of the New York State...