New York Law Review

Tag: Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

  • Melendez v. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, 11 N.Y.3d 839 (2008): SSI Recipient Exclusion from Public Assistance Calculations

    11 N.Y.3d 839 (2008)

    New York Social Services Law § 131-c(1) mandates the exclusion of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients from family groups when determining eligibility and grant amounts for public assistance, but this can be superseded by specific language in state budget appropriations.

    Summary

    This case concerns whether a minor receiving SSI benefits should be included in the family group when determining eligibility for public assistance, specifically the Emergency Shelter Allowance (ESA). The Court of Appeals held that Social Services Law § 131-c(1) generally excludes SSI recipients from such calculations, aligning with federal law at the time of enactment. However, the Court also found that the state legislature can supersede this exclusion through explicit language in budget appropriations, as it did in the 2006-2007 budget regarding the ESA. Thus, the lower court erred in calculating retroactive benefits owed after April 1, 2006.

    Facts

    Zoraida Melendez, residing in the Bronx with her spouse and three children, received public assistance, including an ESA due to her HIV-related illness. Her daughter, Chastity, received SSI benefits due to a disability. Initially, Chastity was not included in the household for public assistance calculations. However, HASA (NYC HIV/AIDS Services Administration) began using software that included Chastity and her SSI income when calculating Melendez’s ESA, reducing Melendez’s monthly benefits by $480.

    Procedural History

    Melendez requested a fair hearing to contest HASA’s determination, which the Commissioner of OTDA upheld. Melendez then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, which was denied. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that 18 NYCRR 352.3(k) conflicted with Social Services Law § 131-c(1). Supreme Court then granted Melendez’s petition, directing the exclusion of Chastity and ordering back payments. The Commissioner of OTDA appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether Social Services Law § 131-c(1) requires the exclusion of minors receiving SSI from the family group when determining eligibility for and the amount of public assistance payable.
    2. Whether the Legislature, through its appropriation for the ESA in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, superseded the requirements of Social Services Law § 131-c(1).

    Holding

    1. Yes, because Social Services Law § 131-c(1) was intended to mirror federal law, specifically the filing-unit and invisibility rules under the AFDC program, which excluded SSI recipients from household income calculations.
    2. Yes, because the 2006-2007 budget included specific language directing OTDA to consider applicants’ and their family members’ SSI benefits as income when budgeting ESAs, thereby superseding any inconsistent provisions of state law, including section 131-c(1).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that Social Services Law § 131-c(1) was enacted to align with federal law regarding AFDC, which mandated the exclusion of SSI recipients from family income calculations. The legislative history of both the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) and the state law supports this interpretation. The Court rejected the Commissioner’s argument that the statute merely granted discretion to exclude SSI recipients. The Court emphasized that the state statute had to conform with federal law to receive federal reimbursement. However, the Court also recognized that the ESA exists solely by virtue of an annual appropriation in the State budget. The Court highlighted that while the ESA appropriation language had varied over the years, the 2006-2007 budget explicitly directed the inclusion of SSI benefits in calculating ESA eligibility, superseding any conflicting state laws. As the court stated, “This language clearly supersedes any inconsistent provisions of state law — which necessarily includes section 131-c (1).” The court noted that Congress had repealed the federal invisibility rule in 1996.

  • Matter of Walsh v. Smith, 46 N.Y.2d 102 (1978): Determining Income Eligibility for Home Relief When SSI Payments are Recouped

    Matter of Walsh v. Smith, 46 N.Y.2d 102 (1978)

    A Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment withheld by the Federal Government to recoup a prior overpayment due to administrative error is not considered “available income” to a home relief recipient and cannot be counted when determining their eligibility for, or the amount of, home relief benefits.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a withheld SSI payment, due to recoupment of a prior overpayment, can be considered “available income” when determining eligibility for home relief. The petitioner, an elderly woman, had her SSI benefits reduced to recoup a prior overpayment caused by an administrative error. Consequently, she applied for home relief. The New York Court of Appeals held that the withheld SSI payment cannot be considered available income because the petitioner was not actually receiving it. The court emphasized that eligibility for home relief is based on current income, not past overpayments, and that state regulations require income to be “available” to be counted.

    Facts

    Petitioner, a 91-year-old woman, received Social Security (OASDI) and SSI benefits. The Social Security Administration determined it had overpaid her SSI due to an error in calculating her grant. The Administration reduced her SSI payment and then suspended it entirely to recoup the overpayment. As a result, her income was insufficient to meet her needs, prompting her to apply for home relief.

    Procedural History

    The New York City Department of Social Services initially denied the home relief application. After a fair hearing, the State Commissioner directed the city agency to provide a supplemental grant, including the amount of the recouped SSI payment as “countable income.” Petitioner then initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review the State Commissioner’s ruling. Special Term dismissed the proceeding, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to resolve a conflict with a prior decision.

    Issue(s)

    Whether an SSI payment, which is being withheld by the Federal Government to recoup a prior overpayment, can be considered “available income” to the recipient for the purpose of determining eligibility for, and the amount of, home relief benefits under New York Social Services Law.

    Holding

    No, because a person is not “receiving” a payment that is being withheld for recoupment. The court found that neither the statute nor the regulations support the inclusion of the recouped amount as available income.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that, according to Section 158 of the Social Services Law, a person “receiving” federal supplemental security income payments is ineligible for home relief. Similarly, Section 142 states that a person “receiving” SSI payments cannot receive other forms of assistance for the same period. Since the petitioner was not actually receiving the SSI payment due to the recoupment, she could not be considered as “receiving” it within the meaning of the statute. The court emphasized that the regulations at 18 NYCRR 352.16(a) require income to be “available” to be considered in determining eligibility. The court cited 18 NYCRR 352.17(b)(4): “When wages are garnisheed, property income assigned, bank accounts attached, or other cash income is unavailable to the applicant or recipient, such income shall not be applied against need”. The court also referenced 18 NYCRR 352.31(a)(2), which states that “All available and unrestricted income of an applicant * * * shall be prorated and applied against his needs”. Therefore, the $12.42 being recouped was not “available” to the petitioner and could not be counted as income. The court distinguished between determining that “receivable but in fact unreceived income” should be counted versus this situation where the petitioner does not receive the income in any way. The court concluded that, while the legislature can determine what constitutes income, neither the statute nor the regulations support counting the recouped amount in this case.