Weinhandler v. Blum
| Decision Date | 17 November 1981 |
| Citation | 444 N.Y.S.2d 3,84 A.D.2d 716 |
| Parties | In re Application of Annie WEINHANDLER et al., etc., Petitioners-Respondents, For a Judgment etc., v. Barbara BLUM, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
R. Vorspan, New York City, for petitioners-respondents.
J. F. Wagner, Ass't. Atty. Gen. and A. G. Krams, New York City, for respondents-appellants.
Before SANDLER, J. P., and SULLIVAN, CARRO, MARKEWICH and LUPIANO, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 3, 1980, which in an Article 78 proceeding seeking a declaration that respondent State Commissioner's shelter allowance schedule is invalid, granted reargument and adhered to decision dated February 25, 1980 which held in abeyance respondents' application to dismiss the proceeding pending a trial to ascertain facts deemed necessary by the court, reversed, on the law, and petition dismissed, without costs.
Appeal from Order dated February 25, 1980 dismissed as academic, without costs.
In this Article 78 proceeding, seeking, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, the petition seeks a declaration that the shelter allowance schedule adopted by the State Commissioner in 18 NYCRR § 352.3 violates the United States Constitution, the New York State Constitution, and various sections of the Social Services Law, and the Social Security Act.
In essence, the petition alleges that the shelter allowances provided are substantially below the rents actually required to be paid by many welfare recipients. Concluding that factual issues were presented in papers submitted with regard to the percentage of recipients who pay rent above maximum allowances, Special Term held in abeyance respondents' motion to dismiss the petition pending a trial to ascertain as precisely as possible the correct percentage of shelter recipients who pay more than the maximums allowable.
Following the decision of this court in Ram v. Blum, 77 A.D.2d 278, 432 N.Y.S.2d 892, Special Term granted respondent Blum leave to appeal.
The issues presented are substantially the same as those which were considered by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Bernstein v. Toia, 43 N.Y.2d 437, 402 N.Y.S.2d 342, 373 N.E.2d 238, and determined adversely to petitioner's contentions. The principal distinction urged is that in Matter of Bernstein, supra, the Court of Appeals observed that the shelter allowance schedule would fully meet the rental needs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jiggetts v. Grinker
...housing. Plaintiffs claim that while this court considered the adequacy of the shelter grant schedule in Matter of Weinhandler v. Blum, 84 A.D.2d 716, 444 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dept.1981), appeal withdrawn, 56 N.Y.2d 649 (1982) that case is limited by its facts, since the Weinhandler plaintiffs, ......
-
Jiggets v. Grinker
...238 (1977); Ram v. Blum, 77 A.D.2d 278, 432 N.Y.S.2d 892 (1st Dept.1980) app. withdrawn, 54 N.Y.2d 834 (1981); Weinhandler v. Blum, 84 A.D.2d 716, 44 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dept.1980), app. withdrawn, 56 N.Y.2d 649 (1982). In these three actions, plaintiffs unsuccessfully challenged the regulatory......
-
Joanne S. v. Carey
...Szanto v. Dumpson, 77 Misc.2d 392, 353 N.Y.S.2d 683; Matter of Fletcher v. Lavine, 75 Misc.2d 808, 349 N.Y.S.2d 43; Weinhandler v. Blum, 84 A.D.2d 716, 717, 444 N.Y.S.2d 3; Filler v. Port Washington Union Free School District, E.D.N.Y., 436 F.Supp. 1231, 1234. These cases essentially hold t......
-
Gautam v. Perales
...settled precedent to the contrary (Matter of Bernstein v. Toia, 43 N.Y.2d 437, 402 N.Y.S.2d 342, 373 N.E.2d 238; Matter of Weinhandler v. Blum, 84 A.D.2d 716, 444 N.Y.S.2d 3; and Ram v. Blum, 77 A.D.2d 278, 432 N.Y.S.2d 892). In Jiggetts the Court of Appeals determined that Social Services ......