Veit v. Barbaro
| Decision Date | 25 February 1969 |
| Citation | 59 Misc.2d 117,298 N.Y.S.2d 251 |
| Parties | Application of Robert VEIT and Barbara Veit, Petitioners, for a judgment pursuant to Article 78 CPLR v. Joseph BARBARO, as Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Robert and Barbara Veit live in their own home in Merrick with their three children. The home is subject to a first mortgage to the Bowery Savings Bank (Bowery) and a second mortgage in favor of the Island Federal Savings & Loan Association. Since they have little means, the Veits have been receiving assistance under the aid to dependent children program (ADC) since August of 1968. However, they have not been able to obtain a shelter allowance from the Nassau County Social Services Department, because the Department claims that $149.03 monthly payments on their first mortgage and $26.26 monthly payments on their second mortgage total $175.29 each month and exceed the $160 maximum monthly shelter allowance for a family of five permissible under the Department rules. Mr. Veit's father paid $313.40 on the July and August installments on the first mortgage, as well as the two installments of $26.26 on the second mortgage, and, by affidavit, he indicates he will continue to pay the second mortgage. Despite this, the first mortgage has been in arrears since September of 1968 and the Bowery has informed the Veits that the mortgage will be foreclosed if the arrears are not satisfied by February 26, 1969.
The Veits, as petitioners, have brought on this petition by order to show cause to have the Court annul the Social Services Commissioner's decision denying the shelter allowance as being arbitrary and in violation of statutory authority. They seek a direction to the Commissioner that the mortgage arrears be satisfied and a monthly shelter allowance in the amount of $149.03, the monthly first mortgage payment, be granted.
The Commissioner, as respondent, opposes this application contending:
1. The application is improperly before this Court, as the petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not seeking a hearing pursuant to Social Services Law, Section 353(2); and 2. The petitioners do not have a legal right to the relief sought because their total mortgage payments exceeded the $160 maximum monthly shelter allowance for a family of five.
When the Veits fell behind in their mortgage payments and they did not get a shelter allowance, they could have appealed to the State Board for a hearing (Social Services Law, Section 353(2)), and gotten a determination, which, if adverse, they could have challenged by an Article 78 proceeding. The Veits did not do this. Apparently, they are unsophisticated folk who were not represented by counsel and who lacked knowledge of their rights and how to enforce their rights. Moreover, being without means they did not think in terms of lawyers and legal process. They are fortunate that their interests are now being represented by the Nassau County Law Service Committee, albeit at the eleventh hour. Their mortgage on their home is to be foreclosed on February 26, 1969. Regardless of what they should have done in the past, it would be futile at this stage to seek the appropriate administrative remedies. This is in the context in which the Court must address itself to their petition.
The petitioners are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies where to do so would be an exercise of futility. It is the settled law of this State that a person may proceed by way of an Article 78 proceeding without exhausting his administrative remedies where the relief provided by such remedy would be inadequate, Dailey v. City of New York, 170 App.Div. 267, 156 N.Y.S. 124, aff'd 218 N.Y. 665, 113 N.E. 1053; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Delaware & Hudson Company, 238 App.Div. 191, 264 N.Y.S. 470; Lesron Junior, Inc. v. Feinberg, 13 A.D.2d 90, 213 N.Y.S.2d 602.
The rationale of these cases is apposite here. In face of the fact that the Bowery will foreclose the Veits' mortgage imminently, the Commissioner urges that the Veits should seek a 'hearing' although this procedure is neither expeditious nor calculated to furnish the requisite relief in the time available. Under 18 New York Code of Rules and Regulations, Sections 84.6 and 84.15, a hearing in cases involving suspension of assistance is required to be held by the Department of Social Services within ten working days from the date the request for such hearing is received by the Department and in such cases a decision is to be issued not later than twelve working days from the close of the hearing.
It is interesting to note that the Commissioner quite properly cites People ex rel. Broadway and Ninety-Sixth Street Realty Company v. Walsh, 203 App.Div. 468, 196 N.Y.S. 672. This case approves the procedure of appeal within the line of administrative officials before allowing recourse to the Courts. However, the Court there bottomed its approval contingent upon 'that substantial justice be done in these circumstances' . It is clear that to require the petitioners to exhaust their administrative remedies here would not result in substantial justice.
The question of substantive relief is not so easily determined. Sections 62, subd. 1 and 131, subd. 2 of the Social Services Law provide a general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norton v. Lavine
...greater than at present, Matter of Le Godais v. Barbaro, 60 Misc.2d 988, 990, 304 N.Y.S.2d 476, 478; Matter of Veit v. Barbaro, 59 Misc.2d 117, 121, 298 N.Y.S.2d 251, 255. Moreover, respondents have adequate protection to resort to in Social Services Law, § 360, held to be constitutional, S......
-
Selectmen of Sterling v. Governor
...to furnishing him with new lodgings. This we are unable to say. See Matter of Veit v. Barbaro, 59 Misc.2d (N.Y.) 117, 120--121, 298 N.Y.S.2d 251 (1969). Matter of LeGodais v. Barbaro, 60 Misc.2d (N.Y.) 988, 989--990, 304 N.Y.S.2d 476 (1969). Since it is not apparent from the return just wha......
-
Tischler v. Board of Ed. of Monroe Woodbury Central School Dist. No. 1
...time of the Board's action. Consequently, there was no need to exhaust that potential administrative remedy (Matter of Veit v. Barbaro, 59 Misc.2d 117, 119, 298 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253). We therefore hold that the petition states a cause of action. It alleges that the denial of tenure by the resp......
-
Muladzhanov v. City of N.Y.
...under both the administrative and state judicial systems as a whole in reviewing a procedural due process claim); Veit v. Barbaro, 298 N.Y.S.2d 251, 253 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1969) (holding that a plaintiff may still proceed to state court without exhausting administrative remedies if those remedi......