From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Stearns v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 9, 1990


Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff is a recipient of Federally subsidized food stamps which are administered by the New York State Department of Social Services through the New York City Department of Social Services. Eligibility for food stamp benefits is based on household income (see, 7 U.S.C. § 2014 [d]; 7 C.F.R. § 273.9 [a]; 18 NYCRR 387.10; Meyer v. Lyng, 859 F.2d 62, 63). With certain enumerated exclusions, household income includes all monetary payments to the household from any source (see, 7 U.S.C. § 2014 [d]; 7 C.F.R. § 273.9 [c] [1] [ii]; 18 NYCRR 387.11 [c] [2]; see also, Matter of Lasoff v. Blum, 85 A.D.2d 219, 222).

The Federal statute and regulations exclude "vendor payments" from the household income. "[V]endor payments" are defined as payments that are not made directly to a household ( 7 U.S.C. § 2014 [d] [1]) but are paid to a third party for a household expense (see, 7 C.F.R. § 273.9 [c]; 18 NYCRR 387.11). However, payments that are not made to a third party, but are made directly to the household, are to be counted as income to determine eligibility. It is undisputed that the money orders received by the petitioner from her relatives to pay her excess rent were not made payable directly to her landlord. Rather the blank money orders were endorsed by the petitioner and paid by her to her landlord. Thus, the payments do not fall within the definition of a "vendor payment".

While this court is not unsympathetic to the petitioner's plight, we are constrained by the explicit language contained in the regulations. This court is not empowered to rewrite the legislative scheme in accordance with the court's conceptions of prudent public policy (see, Ruhe v. Bergland, 683 F.2d 102). Thus, we conclude that the State Commissioner did not err in upholding the computation of the petitioner's food stamp allowance containing an adjustment for the payments made to the petitioner by her relatives. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Stearns v. Perales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 9, 1990
163 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Stearns v. Perales

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of FRANCES STEARNS, Petitioner, v. CESAR PERALES, as…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 9, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
558 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Matter of Stearns v. Perales

Decided February 12, 1991 Appeal from (2d Dept: 163 A.D.2d 392) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR…

In the Matter of Tutuianu v. New York State

The respondent New York State Office of Temporary Disability Insurance (hereinafter the State Office) based…