Tucker v. Toia
| Decision Date | 04 January 1977 |
| Citation | 390 N.Y.S.2d 794,89 Misc.2d 116 |
| Parties | Angela TUCKER et al., Plaintiffs, v. Philip L. TOIA, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York StateDepartment of Social Services, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
K. Wade Eaton, Rene H. Reixach, Steven L. Brown, Rochester, Greater Up-State Law Project, David W. Beier, III, Rochester, Peggy J. Kamens, Law Clerk, Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., for plaintiffs.
William B. Haley, for Community Service Society of New York, amici curiae.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., State of New York, William J. Goldman, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel, for defendant.
In this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs seek to have declared unconstitutional a portion of § 158 of New York's Social Services Law, specifically that provision added by § 15 of Chapter 76 of the Laws of 1976 (hereafter ' § 15'). The plaintiffs, three individuals rendered ineligible for Home Relief benefits by this provision and two organizations whose membership includes persons likewise directly affected, 1 assert that § 15 is violative of provisions of the New York State Constitution which recognize the state's obligation to provide for 'the aid, care and support of the needy' (Article 17, section 1) and the right of each person within our state to 'the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof' (Article 1, section 11).
This action was commenced on October 26, 1976, by service of a summons and complaint along with an Order to Show Cause why the defendant state welfare commissioner should not be preliminarily enjoined from implementing the challenged statute. A preliminary injunction which the plaintiffs sought was granted on October 29, 1976, in an order which was affirmed by the Appellate Division on November 12, 1976. Tucker v. Toia, 54 A.D.2d 322, 388 N.Y.S.2d 475. 2 The Appellate Division also denied defendant Toia's request for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals on the preliminary injunction issue.
The defendant has answered the complaint and this court now entertains the plaintiff's motions for a summary judgment and for class determination pursuant to C.P.L.R. §§ 3212 and 902, respectively, and defendant Toia's cross-motion for summa judgment. For the reasons set forth below, this court will grant plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and deny their motion for leave to represent a class of persons similarly situated. 3 Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.
New York provides for its needy through a number of programs, most of which are administered by local social services districts but which are established and mandated by the state's Social Services Law. 4 The broadest of these programs, indeed the foundation for not only the state's income maintenance programs but also its program of medical assistance for the needy, is the Home Relief ('HR') program. There are no 'categorical' eligibility requirements for the HR program and the aid provided pursuant to its provisions is available to (Social Services Law § 158(a)) 'any person unable to provide for himself, or who is unable to secure support from a legally responsible relative, who is not receiving needed assistance or care under other provisions of this chapter, or from other sources . . .'. 5
Prior to the enactment of § 15, 6 persons under 21 years of age who met the eligibility requirements of need, established by § 131--a of the Social Services Law, were granted aid notwithstanding the possible existence of legally responsible but non-contributing relatives. 7 Local social services officials were required by state regulations to determine the existence and whereabouts of legally responsible relatives, their ability to contribute to the support of the applicant, and to initiate support proceedings in the applicant's name where appropriate. (18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 370.4.) The local districts are permitted to initiate actions to recover any public moneys provided to or expended on behalf of a recipient during any time within ten years after the expenditure. Social Services Law, § 104.1
Since July 1, 1975, the state has required, as a condition of eligibility for aid to be given to the Parents of needy children, that such parents cooperate in the identification, location and prosecution of non-contributing relatives. (Social Services Law, § 101--a.) These requirements have been applied to the parents of all needy children, irrespective of whether they seek to receive benefits under the HR program or the federally-subsidized Aid to Families with Dependent Children ('AFDC') program. 8
With the enactment of § 15 on March 30, 1976, this mechanism for obtaining contribution from responsible relatives was radically altered with regard to Certain minor children who were theretofore eligible for grants of assistance under the HR program. That section amended § 158(a) of the Social Services Law by the following addition:
(P)rovided, however that no person under the age of twenty-one years except a married person living with their spouse, living apart from a legally responsible relative shall be eligible for home relief unless a proceeding has been brought by or on behalf of such person to compel such legally responsible relative to provide for or contribute to such person's support And until an order of disposition has been entered in such proceeding. (Emphasis added.)
The implementation of this section was directed by defendant Toia, then the acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, on April 16, 1976, through the issuance of an administrative letter (76 ADM--35) which set out specific procedures to be followed by local social services districts.
The immediate impact on those to be affected was twofold: first, the responsibility for obtaining a final order of disposition in the support proceeding was thrust upon those minor children who did not live with both of their legally responsible relatives and who were not 'categorically' eligible for benefits under the AFDC program; and secondly, and more importantly for this discussion, children falling into the group affected by § 15 were to be denied all assistance until such a final order of disposition could be obtained against each responsible relative with whom the child was not living. 9
The bureaucratic nightmare and individual hardship which was foreseen by many 10 was documented in affidavits presented to the federal district court in New York City which issued a temporary restraining order staying defendant Toia's planned implementation of the statute on May 13, 1976. A three-judge court was convened to hear claims that § 15 offended the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That court rendered a decision on September 13, 1976, upholding the statute against the federal constitutional claims. (Rasmussen v. Toia, D.C., 420 F.Supp. 757.) 11
Subsequent to a frustrated second attempt to implement § 15, 12 defendant Toia issued a fourth administrative letter, 76 ADM--98A, on October 19, 1976, directing that no HR benefits be provided beyond November 8, 1976, to any children who had not met the requirements of § 15.
Plaintiff Tucker, a nineteen year old recipient of HR benefits who lives alone and who is presently two months' pregnant, was to have been discontinued pursuant to 76 ADM--98A, prior to this court's issuance of a preliminary injunction. She relies for her support entirely upon her monthly grant of public assistance. She first received notice on October 12, 1976, that these benefits would soon be withdrawn due to her failure to obtain a support order against her father, a resident of Mobile, Alabama. 13 It appears that a minimum of ten weeks are required to process the necessary paperwork to accomplish even a default order under the Uniform Support of Dependents Act (Domestic Relations Law, Article 3--A).
Plaintiff Felder is an eighteen year old woman who, until recently, lived with her mother, sister and four brothers, ranging in age from three months to seventeen years. The sole source of support for this family was their AFDC grant of public assistance. After her graduation from high school, and unable to obtain employment, plaintiff Felder found it necessary to leave the family home. Her application for a separate grant of HR benefits was denied, pursuant to § 15, because she had not obtained an order of support against her absent father. It appears from the plaintiff's papers that she had three times sought to file a petition in Monroe County Family Court and been unsuccessful because she did not know the whereabouts of her father, whom neither she nor any member of her family has seen in some ten years. 14 She was finally permitted to file her petition after the intervention of supervisory personnel at the local social services office, but no action appears to have been taken with respect to that application.
Plaintiff Stewart is a recent recipient of AFDC benefits from the County of Wayne. He is eighteen years of age and, until recently, received an AFDC grant along with his mother. In the late summer of this year, she became an inpatient at the Willard State Hospital and plaintiff Stewart moved to Rochester and applied for HR benefits from the County of Monroe. He was denied assistance, again pursuant to § 15, since he had not obtained a support order against his father, a man whom he has never seen and who abandoned the family home prior to his son's birth.
Central to the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is their assertion that the language of Article 17, section 1, of the New York State Constitution, in providing that 'the aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state . . .', creates in the citizens of New York State a right which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.
...N. Y., 89 Misc.2d 342, 393 N.Y.S.2d 873; Mykolin v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., 89 Misc.2d 193, 389 N.Y.S.2d 996; Tucker v. Toia, 89 Misc.2d 116, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794, appealed on other grounds and affd. 43 N.Y.2d 1, 400 N.Y.S.2d 728, 371 N.E.2d 449; Perez v. Dumpson, 88 Misc.2d 506, 389 ......
-
Martin A by Aurora A v. Gross
...49 N.Y.2d 800 (1980), citing Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 633, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1330, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969); Tucker v. Toia, 89 Misc.2d 116, 128-129, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794 (Sup.Ct.Monroe Co.1977) aff'd 43 N.Y.2d 1, 400 N.Y.S.2d 728, 371 N.E.2d 449 (1977). Neither is alleged shortage of staff......
-
In the Matter of Sheila Graves v. Doar
...N.Y.2d 419, 590 N.Y.S.2d 852, 605 N.E.2d 339; Matter of Davis, 57 N.Y.2d 382, 456 N.Y.S.2d 716, 442 N.E.2d 1227; but see Tucker v. Toia, 89 Misc.2d 116, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794, affd. 43 N.Y.2d 1, 400 N.Y.S.2d 728, 371 N.E.2d 449). Even under the rational basis test, the Supreme Court properly awa......
-
Tucker v. Toia
...prevailed in their declaratory judgment action (see, Tucker v. Toia, 43 N.Y.2d 1, 400 N.Y.S.2d 728, 371 N.E.2d 449, affd. 89 Misc.2d 116, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794). Where no damages are claimed or recovered, as is the case in this declaratory judgment action it is appropriate for the allowance to b......
-
Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
...as a whole, the constitutional right to the benefit of ... meaningful educational and rehabilitative programs...."); Tucker v. Toia, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794, 803 (1977), aff'd, 371 N.E.2d 449 (N.Y. 1977) ("[T]he state may not refuse persons seeking public assistance in violation of their constitut......
-
The importance of due process protections after welfare reform: client stories from New York City.
...XVII of the New York State Constitution and suggesting that a discretionary reading of it should be rejected). (86) See Tucker v. Toia, 390 N.Y.S.2d 794, 800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (noting that the intent of the state to aid the needy is viewed as a fundamental part of the social contract), aff'd,......