New York Law Review

Tag: Safety Net Assistance

  • Brownley v. Doar, 12 N.Y.3d 48 (2009): Adequacy of Housing Allowances Under Safety Net Assistance

    Brownley v. Doar, 12 N.Y.3d 48 (2009)

    The adequacy requirement of Social Services Law § 350, which mandates that public assistance allowances be adequate to properly care for children, does not extend to the Safety Net Assistance (SNA) program.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the “adequacy” standard for public assistance under Social Services Law § 350 applies to New York’s Safety Net Assistance (SNA) program, which provides benefits after the federal Family Assistance (FA) program expires. The Court of Appeals held that it does not. The Court reasoned that the adequacy standard is specifically tied to the FA program’s goal of ensuring the well-being of children, while SNA serves a broader population without a time limit. Therefore, SNA benefits are not subject to the same stringent adequacy requirement.

    Facts

    Doris Brownley and Janee Nelson, New York City residents with dependent children, received benefits from the SNA program. Their SNA payments were less than their actual rents, leading to eviction proceedings. They sued on behalf of all similarly situated families, arguing that the SNA shelter allowances were inadequate under Social Services Law § 350 and Article XVII of the New York State Constitution.

    Procedural History

    The Commissioner of the New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) moved to dismiss the statutory claim, arguing that § 350 did not apply to SNA. Supreme Court denied the motion and granted a preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that § 350’s adequacy requirement does not encompass the SNA program. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the adequacy requirement of Social Services Law § 350 applies to the Safety Net Assistance (SNA) program.
    2. Whether Article XVII of the New York State Constitution mandates that SNA allowances be increased to meet an adequacy requirement.

    Holding

    1. No, because the adequacy standard in § 350 is specifically tied to the Family Assistance program and its focus on the well-being of children, a focus not present in the broader SNA program.
    2. No, because Article XVII does not mandate public assistance be granted on an individual basis in every instance, nor does it command that the State must always meet in full measure all the legitimate needs of each recipient.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that Family Assistance (FA) is designed to ensure the well-being of children, justifying the heightened “adequacy” standard in Social Services Law § 350. The SNA program, however, is broader, applying to all needy individuals regardless of whether they have children, and has no time limit. The court stated, “Safety Net Assistance… places no restriction on how long a person is eligible to receive SNA benefits and applies more broadly as it ‘is not contingent upon the presence of children in the household and it is not specifically designed to deal with their needs’ (75 NY2d at 420).” The Court noted that the Legislature was presumably aware that previous court decisions had determined that section 350 did not apply to the Home Relief program (the predecessor to SNA) and could have included an adequacy requirement in section 159 if they intended to transport the FA adequacy standard into SNA. Additionally, policy considerations supported the decision, namely, that the TANF program was intended to provide a basic standard of living for a finite time period to encourage individuals to obtain gainful employment and decrease reliance on governmental assistance.

    Regarding the constitutional claim, the Court cited Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437, 448-449 (1977) and stated that Article XVII does not mandate that public assistance be granted on an individual basis in every instance. The Court further reasoned that it is the prerogative of the Legislature to “determine who is ‘needy’ and allocate the public dollar accordingly” (Matter of Aliessa v Novello, 96 NY2d 418, 428 [2001]).

  • Rodriguez v. Perales, 96 N.Y.2d 50 (2001): Offsetting Federal Disability Benefits for Shelter Costs

    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.