New York Law Review

Tag: Residency

  • Matter of Luzinski, 39 N.Y.2d 165 (1976): Establishing Residency for Public Assistance

    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.

  • Matter of Corr v. Westchester County Dept. of Social Services, 33 N.Y.2d 111 (1973): Establishing Residency for Medical Assistance

    33 N.Y.2d 111 (1973)

    An out-of-state resident who enters New York and is immediately hospitalized or placed in a nursing home can establish residency for medical assistance purposes if they demonstrate a genuine intent to remain in New York, regardless of the duration of their stay or the location of their residence.

    Summary

    Jessie Corr, an elderly widow with a long history of living in New York, moved from New Jersey back to New York to be closer to her family and entered a nursing home. She applied for medical assistance, but the Westchester County Department of Social Services denied her application based on her short residency in the state. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the denial, holding that Corr had established residency in New York despite being in a nursing home, and that the state could not impose a minimum residency requirement for medical assistance. The court emphasized Corr’s intent to remain in New York and her deep-rooted connections to the state.

    Facts

    Jessie Corr, born and raised in New York, lived in Westchester County from 1915 to 1962. After selling her home in 1962, she moved to New Jersey to live with her son. Following her son’s death in 1969, Corr, suffering from arteriosclerosis and unable to care for herself, lived alone in New Jersey. With limited income and most of her family in Westchester, she moved back to New York in November 1971 and was admitted to a private hospital, then transferred to a nursing home in Westchester a week later. She registered to vote in Westchester in February 1972, listing the nursing home as her address.

    Procedural History

    Corr applied for medical assistance in January 1972. The Westchester County Department of Social Services denied her application. Special Term reversed the Department’s decision, finding that Corr had established residency in New York. The Appellate Division reversed Special Term’s decision, reinstating the denial of medical assistance. Corr appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an individual who moves to New York from out-of-state and is immediately placed in a hospital or nursing home can establish residency in New York for the purpose of qualifying for medical assistance payments, despite not residing outside of an institution.

    Holding

    Yes, because Corr demonstrated a genuine intent to establish residency in New York, supported by her lifelong connections to the state and her desire to be closer to her family, regardless of the fact that she resided in a nursing home.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that while generally an inmate of an institution does not gain or lose residency, an exception exists when the individual pays their own way, is free to come and go, and has no other place of abode, demonstrating an intent to establish the institution as their permanent home. The court emphasized Corr’s 78 years of life in New York, her family in Westchester, her abandonment of her New Jersey home, and her registration to vote in Westchester. The court cited Shapiro v. Thompson, stating that states cannot impose minimum residency requirements for public assistance, as such requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause and the right to travel. The court distinguished this case from situations where someone enters a state solely for medical care. The court found that Corr’s primary motivation was to be closer to family and re-establish her life in New York, not simply to obtain medical assistance. The court held that once residence is established, New York cannot deny assistance based on the short duration of the renewed residence. As the court noted, the petitioner established “bona fides of her residence in New York.”