From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alvarino v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 1999
261 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Alvarino v. Wing (supra), this Court found a similar restriction of eligibility for food stamps to certain categories of aliens not violative of Article XVII, § 1 of the State Constitution and rejected the same arguments raised by plaintiffs here. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, this is not a situation where all medical assistance is denied.

Summary of this case from In re Aliessa v. Novello

Opinion

May 20, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Plaintiffs' argument that they are being denied assistance for reasons unrelated to need in violation of N.Y. Constitution, article XVII, § 1 addresses the manner and level of assistance, not the denial of any assistance, and indeed all but one of the named plaintiffs is currently receiving public assistance. In actuality, the argument is an equal protection claim ( see, Matter of Lee v. Smith, 43 N.Y.2d 453, 460), to which the IAS Court properly applied rational basis rather than strict scrutiny review. Although State classification of aliens is subject to strict scrutiny ( see, Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372), the classification challenged here was enacted in direct response to a Federal supplemental appropriations bill (Pub L 105-18) authorizing the States to provide food assistance to aliens no longer eligible for Federally funded food stamps by reason of the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ( 8 U.S.C. § 1612). The challenged provisions are therefore entitled to the same rational basis review as would a Federally enacted law classifying aliens ( see, Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81-83; State of Washington v. Confederated Bands Tribes of Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 500-501). No argument is made challenging the rationality of any of the five requirements an alien must satisfy in order to qualify for food assistance — under the age of 18 or elderly or disabled; resident in a social services district that has opted to participate in the program; resident in the same social services district since August 22, 1996, the effective date of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996; not have been away from the United States for more than 90 days within the 12-month period preceding the application for food assistance; and apply for citizenship within 30 days of applying for food assistance. Class certification is unwarranted since "governmental operations are involved, and * * * subsequent petitioners will be adequately protected under the principles of stare decisis" ( Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42, 57).

Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Saxe, JJ. [See, 179 Misc.2d 347.]


Summaries of

Alvarino v. Wing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 20, 1999
261 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Alvarino v. Wing (supra), this Court found a similar restriction of eligibility for food stamps to certain categories of aliens not violative of Article XVII, § 1 of the State Constitution and rejected the same arguments raised by plaintiffs here. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, this is not a situation where all medical assistance is denied.

Summary of this case from In re Aliessa v. Novello

In Alvarino (261 AD2d at 255), the First Department found that the restrictions of eligibility for food stamps imposed under Social Services Law § 95 (10) (b) do not violate article XVII, § 1. Indeed, the Court held that the plaintiffs' objections to the FAP addressed the manner and level of assistance, not the denial of any assistance since all but one of the plaintiffs was otherwise receiving public assistance.

Summary of this case from Teytelman v. Wing

In Alvarino (261 AD2d at 256), the First Department found that class certification to challenge the same statute which plaintiffs challenge herein is unwarranted since "`governmental operations are involved, and... subsequent petitioners will be adequately protected under the principles of stare decisis' (Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57)."

Summary of this case from Teytelman v. Wing

In Alvarino, 261 A.D.2d at 255, the First Department found that the restrictions of eligibility for food stamps imposed under SSL § 95(10)(b) do not violate article XVII (§ 1). Indeed, the court held that the plaintiffs' objections to the FAP addressed the manner and level of assistance, not the denial of any assistance since all but one of the plaintiffs was otherwise receiving public assistance.

Summary of this case from Teytelman v. Wing

In Alvarino, 261 A.D.2d at 256, the First Department found that class certification to challenge the same statute which plaintiffs challenge herein is unwarranted since "`governmental operations are involved, and... subsequent petitioners will be adequately protected under the principles of stare decisis' (Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42, 57)."

Summary of this case from Teytelman v. Wing
Case details for

Alvarino v. Wing

Case Details

Full title:GERARDO ALVARINO et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others. Similarly…

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

Date published: May 20, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 255 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 262

Citing Cases

Teytelman v. Wing

In a decision dated May 20, 1999, the Appellate Division, First Department, rejected the challenge and upheld…

Teytelman v. Wing

In a decision dated May 20, 1999, the Appellate Division, First Department, rejected the challenge and upheld…