Rosado v. Wyman

Citation304 F. Supp. 1354
Decision Date12 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 69 Civ. 355.,69 Civ. 355.
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.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

Lee A. Albert, Henry A. Freedman, Sylvia Ann Law, Nancy Duff Levy, Robert P. Borsody, New York City, Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law.

Carl Rachlin, James Spitzer, David Draschler, Gen. Counsel, New York City, National Welfare Rights Organization, Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund, Inc.

Martin Garbus, New York City, Roger Baldwin Foundation of American Civil Liberties Union, Ronald Bevil, Bruce Ferguson, Jonathan Marsh, of counsel.

Burt Neuborne, New York City, New York Civil Liberties Union, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of New York, New York City, for defendants, Philip Weinberg, Amy Juviler, New York City, of counsel.

J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel of City of New York, New York City, amicus curiae, Robert E. Hugh, Phyllis Roberts, New York City, of counsel.

Morris H. Schneider, County Atty. of Nassau County, Mineola, N. Y., amicus curiae, A. Thomas Levin, Mineola, N. Y., of counsel.

Vincent T. McCarthy, U. S. Atty., for Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., amicus curiae, for Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Harold Stevens, New York City, of counsel.

David Gilman, Gen. Counsel, New York City, City-Wide Coordinating Committee of Welfare Groups, MFY Legal Services Inc.

Cesar Perales, Williamsburg Legal Services, Brooklyn, N. Y., for Julia Rosado.

Virginia Schuler, Brooklyn, N. Y., Brownsville Legal Services, for Cathryn Folk and Eula Mae King.

Edward V. Sparer, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn., Harold J. Rothwax, David A. Diamond, Marianne J. Rosenfield, Eric Hirschhorn, New York City, MFY Legal Services Inc., Mort P. Cohen, South Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn, N. Y., for Lydia Hernandez.

Morton Friedman, St. Albans, N. Y., for Annie Lou Phillips and Majorie Duffy.

Philip Sokol, New York City, of counsel, for Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York.

Dorothy J. Coyle, New York City, of counsel, for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York.

Mildred A. Shanley, Brooklyn, of counsel, for Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Brooklyn.

Louis Agin, New York City, of counsel, for Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies.

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge, MISHLER and WEINSTEIN, District Judges.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A three-judge court was properly convened in this case when plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of section 131-a of the New York Social Services Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 55. Chapter 184 of the Laws of 1969, adopted March 31, 1969, effective July 1, 1969. It is contended by plaintiffs that the provision constitutes an irrational and invidious discrimination against residents of Nassau County because the schedules of payments under the Aid to Dependent Children provisions were some 15% less for Nassau County residents than for residents of the City of New York even though the cost of living for those families receiving aid to dependent children was not lower in Nassau County than in New York City.

Following designation of members of the three-judge court by the Chief Judge of this Circuit, all parties filed motions for summary judgment with supporting affidavits on April 30, 1969. On the same day that motions for summary judgment were submitted, a bill to repeal subdivision 4 of section 131-a of the New York Social Services Law and to provide a new subdivision 4 was introduced in the Legislature.

Subdivision 4 of section 131-a, as originally adopted, provided for a method of reduction of monthly grants and allowances in areas outside the City of New York but not for their increase. The new subdivision 4 provides that the Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York may promulgate schedules of monthly grants and allowances in individual districts "for greater or lesser amounts" than those established under section 131-a to reflect costs of living "but not to exceed the maximums prescribed" for residents of the City of New York. In addition, the new subdivision 4 also permits local social services officials, "with the approval of the appropriate local legislative body," to "make application to the department" of Social Services "for the promulgation of a schedule pursuant" to this new subdivision. The new subdivision reads as follows:

4. Provided it accords with federal requirements, the regulations of the department shall provide that the commissioner, with respect to any social services district to which subdivision three
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Jefferson v. Hackney 8212 5064
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 30 Mayo 1972
    ...more equitable basis.' 397 U.S., at 412—413, 90 S.Ct., at 1218. These conclusions led us to reject the holding of the District Court, 304 F.Supp. 1354, 1377, that Congress intended to prevent any reduction whatever in AFDC payments, and to reject the argument of the welfare recipients that ......
  • 42 249 Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union 8212 858
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 1974
    ...here, would benefit from the normal appellate review available to single-judge cases in the courts of appeals. 18 See Rosado v. Wyman, D.C., 304 F.Supp. 1354, appeal dismissed, 395 U.S. 826, 89 S.Ct. 2134, 23 L.Ed.2d 739; Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm'n, D.C., 284 F.Supp. 950, vacat......
  • Rosado v. Wyman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 18 Junio 1969
    ...n. 3, 88 S.Ct. at 2131. Since plaintiffs equal protection claim is no longer before this Court (Rosado v. Wyman, 304 F.Supp. 1354 (E.D.N.Y.1969) (per curiam opinion of three-judge court)), we must confront the question of our jurisdiction to decide the federal statutory claim. We conclude t......
  • Rosado v. Wyman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 16 Julio 1969
    ...an order and a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granting a preliminary injunction, 304 F.Supp. 1354 (1969), and a permanent injunction, ___ F.Supp. ___ (1969), against enforcement of Section 131-a of the New York Social Services Law, McKinney......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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