Walker v. Buscaglia
| Decision Date | 14 December 1979 |
| Citation | 71 A.D.2d 315,423 N.Y.S.2d 81 |
| Parties | Application of Louretha WALKER, Ginnie Hoopengarner and Ray Green, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Fred J. BUSCAGLIA, Individually and as Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services, and Barbara Blum, Individually and as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, and Hon. J. Douglas Trost, Mary Ann Killeen, Peter J. Notaro, John J. Honan, Edward V. Mazur and Victor B. Manz, Judges of the Family Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany, for respondents Blum and Family Court Judges (Peter Todoro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Buffalo, of counsel).
Thaddeus J. Szymanski, County Atty., Buffalo, for respondent Buscaglia (Peter Aiello, Buffalo, of counsel).
Before DILLON, P. J., and HANCOCK, SCHNEPP, DOERR and WITMER, JJ.
This appeal presents questions (1) as to the jurisdiction of Family Court, (2) whether an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition is an appropriate vehicle by which to test such jurisdiction and to afford a proper remedy to petitioners and, if so, (3) what the remedy should be. The case arises from efforts by respondent Fred J. Buscaglia, Commissioner of Erie County Department of Social Services, to require the parents of petitioners either to reimburse the County for current public assistance payments being made to petitioners or to accept the return of petitioners to the respective parents' homes and support them without public assistance.
Petitioners are three emancipated minors, 19 or 20 years of age, who have been receiving public assistance from respondent Commissioner Buscaglia. In an effort to reduce the welfare tax burden on Erie County, respondent commenced three support proceedings against their parents pursuant to sections 415 and 422 of the Family Court Act.
Petitioner Louretha Walker and her infant daughter had been accepted for public assistance by the Commissioner in June 1978. She had not lived with her mother for over two years, having moved out when her baby was six months old, because there was no room for them in her mother's home. In August 1978 the Commissioner brought a proceeding under Article 4 of the Family Court Act before respondent Judge Trost, to require Louretha's mother to support her instead of the County doing so. In such proceeding, in theory brought on behalf of the recipient of public assistance (see Social Services Law, §§ 101-a, 111-b, 349-b; Evans v. Matthews, 55 A.D.2d 1047, 391 N.Y.S.2d 238), the recipient is not made a party. Louretha and her mother appeared, together with the Commissioner's counsel, before Judge Trost. The court made no inquiry into the mother's financial ability or facilities for accepting the return of her daughter and granddaughter. Without ado, Louretha was informed that she must return home with her mother or "starve" her public assistance would be discontinued. No mention was made of Louretha's child. Although the mother states that she had neither room nor resources for Louretha and the granddaughter, she agreed to accept their return in lieu of the alternative offered to them. The court then made an order directing the Commissioner to terminate at once the public assistance grant to Louretha. This automatically also resulted in the discontinuance of assistance to Louretha's infant daughter.
Petitioner Ginnie Hoopengarner left her parents' home at age 16 and supported herself, but later returned. She is Caucasian and became pregnant by a Black. Her father disowned her, and she moved out of the house in fear for her safety. In April 1978 she was accepted by respondent Commissioner Buscaglia for public assistance. Three months later the Commissioner instituted a proceeding against Ginnie's parents to require them to reimburse the County for the current public assistance being furnished to her or to accept her return to their home. The case came on before respondent Judge Notaro. Ginnie, though not a party to the proceeding, appeared with her parents, together with the Commissioner's attorney. No inquiry was made as to the parents' ability to support Ginnie and her daughter or whether they had facilities to accommodate them in her home; and Ginnie's mother states that (1) there is no room for Ginnie and her daughter in their home, (2) the parents cannot afford to support Ginnie and daughter, and (3) the parents have now separated, leaving Ginnie's mother alone with serious physical and financial problems. The court ordered the Commissioner to terminate public assistance to Ginnie at once, which resulted also in ending such aid to her baby.
Petitioner Ray Green is a male student recently released from military service. He lived in a small efficiency apartment with his father until they disagreed and his father ordered him out. In October 1978 he was accepted by respondent Commissioner for public assistance. Two months later the Commissioner instituted a proceeding against the father to require him to reimburse the County for the current public assistance being furnished to the son or to take the son back into the father's apartment. Petitioner Green, though not a party to the proceeding, appeared with his father, together with an attorney for the Commissioner, before Judge Killeen. No inquiry was made into the father's financial circumstances or the practical relationship between father and son. The court granted the application and directed the Commissioner to terminate public assistance to petitioner Green.
In reliance upon these court orders, respondent Buscaglia sent to each of the above three recipients of public assistance notice of intent to discontinue payment thereof. Each of them requested and received a "fair hearing" thereon as provided by the regulations (18 NYCRR, 358.1, et seq.). At the time of the present proceeding a decision had only been rendered upon one of such hearings, and it was an affirmance of Commissioner Buscaglia's determination, specifying in part that it was made in reliance on the Family Court order.
Petitioners instituted this Article 78 proceeding in the nature of an application for writ of prohibition, asking the Supreme Court (1) to enjoin the Erie County Family Court Judges from issuing orders authorizing respondent Commissioner Buscaglia to terminate public assistance grants to petitioners or to others similarly situated; (2) to grant class action relief, and (3) to grant additional declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to such orders.
Special Term (a) held that the record was not sufficient to permit it to determine whether it should entertain the application for writ of prohibition, but (b) directed that before issuing any further order affecting payment of public assistance, respondent judges hold plenary hearings at which the recipients should be made parties and be represented by counsel of their own choosing or by law guardians. Family Court Act, § 249, (c) annulled the orders directing respondent Buscaglia to terminate public assistance benefits to petitioners and directed respondents Commissioners Buscaglia and Blum to restore such benefits pending the disposition of these cases in Family Court pursuant to Special Term's judgment and (d) in all other respects denied and dismissed the petition.
On this appeal petitioners contend that Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to direct respondent Commissioner Buscaglia to terminate public assistance payments to them, and violated petitioners' due process rights by directing the Commissioner to terminate public assistance to them despite the fact that petitioners were not parties to such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Lilly
-
Comm'r of Soc. Serv. ex rel. Maudlyn V.R. v. Paul C.
... ... 2 Walker v. Buscaglia, 71 A.D.2d 315, 423 N.Y.S.2d 81 [1979], relied upon by DSS, is not to the contrary. In Walker, it was held that Family Court judges ... ...
-
Karin T. v. Michael T.
... ... Family Court being of limited jurisdiction (see New York State Constitution, Article VI, § 13; Walker v. Buscaglia, 71 A.D.2d 315, 423 N.Y.S.2d 81) lacks the power to determine all of the rights and obligations which the factual web created by these ... ...
-
Peterson v. Ray
... ... As to prohibition: In Walker v. Buscaglia, 71 A.D.2d 315, 423 N.Y.S.2d 81 an Article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition was commenced in the Supreme Court, Erie County, ... ...