Opinion
3730.
Decided May 25, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered March 11, 2003, which ordered that a proposed administrative directive and notices clarify there would be no enforcement of any class member's pre-1994 child support orders, and specify that receipt of public assistance or Supplemental Security Income constitutes relevant, significant but rebuttable evidence of indigency and inability to pay child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York (William H. Bristow III of counsel), for appellants.
Greater Upstate Law Project, Inc., Albany (Kathleen Whelan of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
The permanent injunction against enforcement of the pre-1994 orders was consistent with our prior affirmance of a 1995 order ( 226 A.D.2d 141, appeal dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 963 and 90 N.Y.2d 1007, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 808). The meaning and import of the receipt of means-tested public assistance as rebuttable evidence of indigency and the inability of a noncustodial parent to provide support ( see Matter of Rose [Clancy] v. Moody, 83 N.Y.2d 65, 70, cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v. Moody, 511 U.S. 1084) requires some form of public notice.
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.