Rodriguez v. Perales, 96 N.Y.2d 50 (2001)
A local Department of Social Services (DSS) can require a recipient of temporary housing assistance to use a portion of their federal disability benefits to contribute to the cost of the shelter, provided the recipient retains an amount equal to the statutory standard of monthly need apart from shelter.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that the Westchester County DSS could require Elias Rodriguez, a disabled homeless person receiving federal disability benefits (SSI/SSD), to contribute a portion of those benefits towards the cost of his temporary emergency shelter. The DSS determined Rodriguez’s monthly need, including shelter costs, and required him to assign the portion of his federal benefits that exceeded his standard of need. The Court found that temporary housing assistance is a form of safety net assistance and can be offset by the recipient’s available income and resources. The Court reasoned that Social Services Law § 131-v authorizes DSS payments to non-profit shelters as a cost-saving measure and does not create a separate entitlement.
Facts
Elias Rodriguez, a permanently disabled homeless individual, received temporary shelter assistance from the Westchester County DSS starting in 1986. The DSS paid Westhab, Inc. $1,800 per month to house Rodriguez. Rodriguez received $564 per month in Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability (SSD) benefits from the federal government, in addition to food stamps. DSS determined Rodriguez’s standard of monthly need was $1,937, including shelter and energy costs.
Procedural History
The DSS required Rodriguez to sign a “Voluntary Assignment of Income” agreement, paying $427 per month to DSS from his federal benefits. Rodriguez requested a fair hearing, which upheld the County DSS’s actions. Rodriguez then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the fair hearing decision. Supreme Court confirmed the decision and dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the DSS could legally require Rodriguez to assign a portion of his federal disability benefits as a condition for the continued provision of housing assistance.
Holding
Yes, because payments under Social Services Law § 131-v are considered safety net assistance, and recipients of such assistance are required to apply available income and resources to reduce or eliminate the need for it.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that temporary housing assistance under Social Services Law § 131-v is a form of safety net assistance, which is a type of public assistance. Public assistance must be awarded “less any [of the recipient’s] available income or resources” (Social Services Law § 131-a [1]). Regulations require recipients of temporary housing assistance to “apply for and use any benefits and resources that will reduce or eliminate the need for temporary housing assistance” (18 NYCRR 352.35 [f]). The Court emphasized that Social Services Law § 131-v merely authorizes DSS to contract with non-profit organizations for cheaper housing alternatives than commercial establishments. It does not create a new, independent entitlement. The legislative history supported this interpretation, showing the intent to provide cheaper housing options within the existing home relief program. The Court also noted that applying the offset to Rodriguez did not violate the New York Constitution because his aggregate benefits would not fall below his monthly standard of need. The court cited Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437, 449, to support the constitutionality of such offsets when the recipient’s aggregate benefits do not drop below the standard of need. Finally, the Court rejected Rodriguez’s argument that Social Services Law § 157(1) denies safety net assistance to SSI recipients, citing Matter of Lee v Smith, 43 NY2d 453, which held such denials unconstitutional. The court stated, “[s]afety net assistance must not be denied or discontinued solely on the basis that the applicant/recipient is in receipt of SSI” (18 NYCRR 370.7). The court distinguished between standards of need under Social Services Law § 131-a and § 209, noting that Rodriguez’s benefits already exceeded his standard of need under § 209.