Matter of Graves v. Doar
Decision Date | 19 May 2009 |
Docket Number | 2008-00372.,2007-10555. |
Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 04060,62 A.D.3d 874,879 N.Y.S.2d 204 |
Parties | In the Matter of SHEILA GRAVES et al., Appellants, and FRED KAMINTZKY, Intervenor-Appellant, v. ROBERT DOAR, Respondent, et al., Respondent/Defendant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellants.
"Whether a lawsuit qualifies as a class action matter is a determination made upon a review of the statutory criteria [set forth in CPLR art 9] as applied to the facts presented" (Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 52 [1999]; see CPLR 901; Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., 59 AD3d 129, 136 [2008]). The Supreme Court denied that branch of the appellants' motion which was for class certification of similarly-situated group-home residents receiving supplemental security income (hereinafter SSI; see 42 USC § 1382) whose food stamp allotments were determined under the New York State Group Home Standardized Benefit program (hereinafter GHSBP), authorized pursuant to 7 USC § 2017 (f) (2), on the sole ground that a class action was not superior to an ordinary lawsuit where "governmental operations" are involved. The premise of the "governmental operations" rule is that stare decisis will afford adequate protection to members of the class (see Matter of Martin v Lavine, 39 NY2d 72, 75 [1976]; Mahoney v Pataki, 98 NY2d 45, 55 [2002]; Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 901.23 [10] [3d ed]).
The "governmental operations" rule does not apply where, as here, the members of the class are "seeking relatively small sums of damages" as a result of the challenged governmental action (Matter of Holcomb v O'Rourke, 255 AD2d 383, 384 [1998]; see Bryant Ave. Tenants' Assn. v Koch, 71 NY2d 856 [1988]; Tosner v Town of Hempstead, 12 AD3d 589 [2004]; Brodsky v Selden Sanitary Corp., 85 AD2d 612 [1981]). The order and judgment appealed from, inter alia,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Proud
...and reduced under the [GHSBP] and whose monthly income included payments of [SSI] benefits.” In re Graves v. Doar (“Graves I”), 62 A.D.3d 874, 875, 879 N.Y.S.2d 204 (2d Dept.2009). Effective October 1, 2008, the State defendant “abandoned * * * the operation of the GHSBP, and returned to th......
-
In the Matter of Sheila Graves v. Doar
...the Supreme Court's prior invalidation of the GHSBP methodology of calculating food stamp benefits ( see generally Matter of Graves v. Doar, 62 A.D.3d 874, 879 N.Y.S.2d 204). Rather, the declaration herein that the GHSBP violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New Yor......
-
Cnty. of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc.
...government operations rule, where the municipality is a defendant, a class wide judgment is usually unnecessary ( Graves v. Doar, 62 A.D.3d 874, 879 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2d Dept. 2009] ). Thus, it is presumed that the government will treat individuals who are similarly situated in the same way bec......
- Matter of Clinton Mews Owners Corp. v. New York City Water Bd.