Matthews v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, Child Welfare Admin.

• Citation: 217 A.D.2d 413,629 N.Y.S.2d 241
• Decision Date: 06 July 1995
• Docket Number: SERVICES--CHILD
• Parties: Theresa MATTHEWS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIALWELFARE ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants, and Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents, and Herbert G. Birch School, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 241

629 N.Y.S.2d 241

217 A.D.2d 413

Theresa MATTHEWS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES--CHILD WELFARE ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants and Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, etc., et al Defendants-Respondents and Herbert G. Birch School, Defendant [And A Third-Party Action.]

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

July 6, 1995.

T. Hughes, M.A. Ketcher, for plaintiffs-appellants-respondents.

E.S. Natrella, for defendants-respondents-appellants.

R. Price, for defendants-respondents.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, ROSS, ASCH and TOM, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 3, 1994, which dismissed and severed all of plaintiffs' claims except for the fifteenth cause of action, and judgment of said court and Justice entered thereon on April 18, 1994, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of also dismissing the fifteenth cause of action for abuse of process, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Allan Matthews, now 10 years of age, is an autistic child who resides with his mother, plaintiff Theresa Matthews, and his brothers, plaintiffs Emmanuel Roland and Eric Matthews. The complaint herein, which contains 23 causes of action, alleges an extensive series of constitutional and statutory violations committed by the named institutional defendants and some of their administrators and employees arising out of Allan's placement in foster care on May 25, 1988 after his mother executed a Voluntary Placement Agreement (VPA). Defendants are purported to have engaged in institutionalized policies, practices and customs of negligence and recklessness that, in contravention of constitutional and statutory prescriptions, systematically and routinely deprive indigent and handicapped children of their familial, educational and human rights.

The City defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, urging that, since Allan had been released from foster care prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiffs' claims for preventative and reunification services are now moot. Defendants contended that, absent any allegation that Allan is subject to further involuntary placement or that plaintiffs are presently being denied any social services to which they are entitled, there is no actual controversy that is ripe for judicial resolution, and injunctive and declaratory relief is unavailable. The Supreme Court, in a lengthy and detailed opinion, granted the motion except as to the fifteenth cause of action for abuse of process, and plaintiffs have appealed. The City defendants cross-appeal from the court's denial of dismissal of the fifteenth cause of action.

Plaintiffs, whose personal exposure to the City and State agencies sued herein appears to have been extremely unfortunate, are attempting to use their own plight as a means of compelling a change in the operating procedures of the subject agencies. However, there is no indication in the record that plaintiffs' experience with the social casework bureaucracy is typical of all, or most, of the individuals who come into contact with these agencies. This litigation, instead, involves something...