Summary
In Goodwin v. Perales, 120 A.D.2d 527 (2d Dep't 1986), petitioner Goodwin alleged that the State's reimbursement method was a denial of equal protection under the Federal and State Constitutions. Goodwin v. Perales, 120 A.D.2d at 527.
Summary of this case from Matter of Stevens v. WingOpinion
May 5, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Meade, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioners seek to challenge the respondents' policy of recoupment of interim Home Relief benefits (see, Social Services Law § 158 [a]; 18 NYCRR 370.7; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1901) as an unconstitutional denial of equal protection under the Federal and State Constitutions (US Const 5th, 14th Amends; N Y Const, art I, § II). By analogy to Matter of Lee v Smith ( 43 N.Y.2d 453), they assert that the full recoupment of all interim assistance provided by the State during the interim assistance period effectively reduced their Home Relief benefits below their constitutional and statutory needs for months in which their Home Relief grants exceeded their retroactive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) grants (see, N Y Const art XVII; Social Services Law § 131-a). As a result, the petitioners claim that the State irrationally discriminates against Home Relief recipients who have become eligible for Federal Supplemental Security Income grants. We disagree.
The uncontroverted facts amply demonstrate that the petitioners' actual benefit receipts never fell below their State needs standard for any month within the interim assistance period. What the respondents' policy accomplishes is, at best, an effective reduction of the petitioners' Federal, not State, benefits during this period, where they relied solely upon State issued funds. Thus, throughout the interim assistance period they were not eligible for Supplemental Security Income grants.
This policy is specifically authorized by both Federal statute and regulation (see, 42 U.S.C. § 1383 [g]; 20 C.F.R. § 416.1901 et seq.) In addition, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the policy is not consonant with the legislative intent of Social Services Law § 158 (a). The legislative memoranda relied upon by the petitioners which indicate an intent to recoup Home Relief benefits which "duplicate" Federal benefits (see, memorandum of State Exec Dept 1974 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2052; memorandum of State Dept of Social Services, 1981 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2456) do not require a month-by-month recoupment analysis as suggested by the petitioners. Furthermore, the respondents' interpretation of the applicable statutory and regulatory schemes is both rational and in accordance with the express language of the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, their interpretation is entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed unless irrational (see, e.g., Matter of Howard v Wyman, 28 N.Y.2d 434; cf. Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 N.Y.2d 437; Matter of Barie v Lavine, 40 N.Y.2d 565; Matter of Padilla v Wyman, 34 N.Y.2d 36, appeal dismissed sub nom. Padilla v Lavine, 419 U.S. 1084).
We have examined the various remaining contentions of each petitioner and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lazer, Mangano and Thompson, JJ., concur.