Matter of Luzinski, 39 N.Y.2d 165 (1976)
A person does not lose their New York residency for purposes of public assistance solely by residing in an out-of-state facility for treatment, care, and rehabilitation, provided they maintain ties to New York and do not intend to establish permanent residency elsewhere.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a mentally retarded adult, who resided in a New Jersey facility for treatment, was still a New York resident and thus eligible for public assistance. The court found that his placement in the out-of-state facility was for treatment purposes, that he maintained ties to New York through his parents’ home, and that there was no indication of intent to establish permanent residency in New Jersey. The Court emphasized that the state cannot deny aid based on grounds not originally invoked in the administrative determination.
Facts
The petitioner, a 24-year-old mentally retarded individual, resided with his parents in Brooklyn until he entered a training school in Vineland, New Jersey, due to his disability. His parents contracted with the school for his maintenance, treatment, training, and education. He received financial assistance from New York State until he turned 21. After his 21st birthday, his parents applied for aid to the disabled under the Social Services Law.
Procedural History
The New York City Department of Social Services initially denied the application, citing adequate resources (later abandoned), non-residency, and the facility’s lack of New York State approval. The State Commissioner upheld the denial based on non-residency and lack of facility approval. The petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court, New York County, which transferred the case to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division annulled the Commissioner’s determination. The Commissioner then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the petitioner lost his New York residency for public assistance purposes by residing in an out-of-state treatment facility.
2. Whether the state can deny aid based on arguments that were not initially raised in the administrative process.
Holding
1. No, because his presence in the New Jersey facility was solely for treatment, and he maintained significant ties to New York without intending to establish permanent residency in New Jersey.
2. No, because a reviewing court must judge the propriety of administrative action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s presence at the Vineland school was solely for treatment, care, and rehabilitation. There was no evidence that he intended to make the school his permanent residence or surrender his former residence. The court analogized the situation to students and hospital patients, who do not automatically lose their residence by being away from home for these purposes. The Court emphasized that any change of residence requires an independent manifestation of intent, which was absent here. The Court cited Matter of Garvey, 147 N.Y. 117, stating, “the sojourn of the student is assumed to be temporary, and the law preserves to him his former residence, notwithstanding his absence therefrom.” The Court also stated that it was impermissible for the appellant to raise a new argument (that the State may properly limit grants in aid to facilities within the State), when that argument was not a ground advanced in the original determination. The Court quoted Matter of Barry v. O’Connell, 303 N.Y. 46, 50, referencing Securities & Exch. Comm. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 196: “a reviewing court… must judge the propriety of such action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency. If those grounds are inadequate or improper, the court is powerless to affirm the administrative action by substituting what it considers to be a more adequate or proper basis.” The Court further found the Vineland school to be effectively approved due to accreditation by New Jersey authorities and the New York Department of Mental Hygiene’s willingness to approve out-of-state facilities approved by other states’ authorities. Finally, the Court emphasized the humanitarian goals of the statutes and the potential for public failure if such aid was denied given the limited facilities in New York.