Rosado v. Wyman, No. 69 Civ. 355.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Writing for the CourtWEINSTEIN
PartiesJulia ROSADO, Lydia Hernandez, Majorie Miley, Sophia Abrom, Ruby Gathers, Louise Lowman, Eula Mae King, Cathryn Folk, Annie Lou Phillips, and Majorie Duffy, individually, on behalf of their minor children, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. George K. WYMAN, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of Social Services for the State of New York, and the Department of Social Services For the State of New York, Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. 69 Civ. 355.
Decision Date24 April 1969

304 F. Supp. 1350

Julia ROSADO, Lydia Hernandez, Majorie Miley, Sophia Abrom, Ruby Gathers, Louise Lowman, Eula Mae King, Cathryn Folk, Annie Lou Phillips, and Majorie Duffy, individually, on behalf of their minor children, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
George K. WYMAN, individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of Social Services for the State of New York, and the Department of Social Services For the State of New York, Defendants.

No. 69 Civ. 355.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

April 24, 1969.


304 F. Supp. 1351

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, District Judge.

This is a class action to declare invalid section 131-a of the New York Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 55, effective July 1st of this year, fixing maximum benefits for certain classes of welfare recipients in the state. Plaintiffs, residents of Nassau County and the City of New York who are presently receiving welfare benefits which will be substantially reduced under the new law, have moved for a temporary restraining order. Defendants have moved for the convening of a three-judge court. For the reasons stated below, both motions are granted.

Plaintiffs allege that the New York statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, and the regulations of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, conditioning receipt of federal aid and its use by the states in their welfare programs. In brief, it is the contention of plaintiffs that federal law requires New York State, if it is to participate in the federal welfare reimbursement program, to take into account increases in the cost of

304 F. Supp. 1352
living in computing new benefit levels; that the new state statute violates federal standards by arbitrarily decreasing the sums permitted to be paid to welfare recipients and by arbitrarily discriminating against Nassau County residents in reducing their payments substantially below those available to New York City residents without any basis in cost-of-living differentials; and that the new state law, if it becomes operative, will cause severe and irreparable harm to plaintiffs and their infant charges

At this preliminary stage of the litigation it is important to note that plaintiffs are not contending that federal law or regulations require the states to provide any welfare benefits. The power of the legislature to determine how the state's resources should be allocated through the levying of taxes and the appropriations of state monies is not being challenged. Rather, it is plaintiffs' position that when a state chooses to participate in the federal welfare program and receives federal appropriations, it must comply with valid federal conditions.

We first address ourselves to the question of a three-judge court. The way the issues have been framed by the parties, they can be broken down into two questions: first, whether a three-judge court is required to hear plaintiffs' equal protection claim that section 131-a constitutes an invidious discrimination against Nassau County welfare recipients and, second, if a three-judge court would be required, whether it should be convened now...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Rosado v. Wyman, No. 540
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1970
    ...Pursuant to the recommendation of Judge Weinstein, a Page 400 three-judge court was convened on April 24, 1969, and a hearing was held. 304 F.Supp. 1350. Before a decision was rendered New York State amended § 131—a to permit the State Commissioner of Social Services to make, in his discret......
  • Cicero v. Olgiati, No. 75 Civ. 2059.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 17, 1976
    ...Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill, 200 F.Supp. 729 (D.Conn.1961); Smith v. Pearson, 294 F.Supp. 611 (N.D.Miss.1968), and Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1350 (E.D.N.Y. 1969). Defendants' contention is unsound. Where plaintiffs request declaratory relief alone, the convening of a three-judge cour......
  • Rosado v. Wyman, No. 69-C-355.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • October 27, 1970
    ...been sufficiently described. See National Welfare Rights Organization v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1346 (E.D.N.Y. 1969); Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1350, 1354, 1356, (E.D.N.Y.), rev'd, 414 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1969), rev'd, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970). For our present purpose......
3 cases
  • Rosado v. Wyman, No. 540
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1970
    ...Pursuant to the recommendation of Judge Weinstein, a Page 400 three-judge court was convened on April 24, 1969, and a hearing was held. 304 F.Supp. 1350. Before a decision was rendered New York State amended § 131—a to permit the State Commissioner of Social Services to make, in his discret......
  • Cicero v. Olgiati, No. 75 Civ. 2059.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 17, 1976
    ...Arrow Lakes Dairy, Inc. v. Gill, 200 F.Supp. 729 (D.Conn.1961); Smith v. Pearson, 294 F.Supp. 611 (N.D.Miss.1968), and Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1350 (E.D.N.Y. 1969). Defendants' contention is unsound. Where plaintiffs request declaratory relief alone, the convening of a three-judge cour......
  • Rosado v. Wyman, No. 69-C-355.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • October 27, 1970
    ...been sufficiently described. See National Welfare Rights Organization v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1346 (E.D.N.Y. 1969); Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1350, 1354, 1356, (E.D.N.Y.), rev'd, 414 F.2d 170 (2d Cir. 1969), rev'd, 397 U.S. 397, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970). For our present purpose......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT