# Appendix — Goldberg v. Kelly > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0162%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 397 U.S. 254 ## Text (39428) Oftioe-Buprems Court, _— = D shied JUN 30 1969 Supreme Court of the —— ae October Term, 1969 | ae \ \ : No. 62 JACK R. GOLDBERG, Coinmissioner of Social Services, Appellant, v. JOHN KELLY, RUBY SHEAFE, TERESA NEGRON, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York APPENDIX J. Laz Rana Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Appellant Municipal Building New York, New York 10007 Lzs A. Atszar, Esq. Hauwny Fazepman, Esq. Attorneys for Appellees 401 West 117th Street New York, New York 10027 Jurisdictional Statement Filed March 6, 1969 Probable TABLE OF CONTENTS Complaint for Three-Judge Court, Declaratory Judg- ment and Injunctive Relief’ 0.0.20... Affidavit of Stephen Wizner in Support of Complaint Exhibit—Letter Dated January 17, 1968 ............. Affidavit of Marilyn Becker in Support of Complaint Affidavit of Peter H. Darrow in Support of Complaint Affidavit of Edward V. Sparer in Support of Com- I ear i nse aUDicara Tacs tadalan exnaniasioinicesdn ast kes Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Con- vening of Three-Judge Court, and Class Action RRS, Sle River aes oe iss OCs ee SM RST AN Oe Affidavit of Henry A. Freedman in Support of Plain- RT A tat ETC ec ny Ae Ce ee CO Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs in Support of Defendants’ pr ate tae eee ee Exhibit A—Newly Adopted Section 351.26 ............ Order to Show Cause in Sheafe v. Wyman II Complaint for Three-Judge Court, Declaratory Judg- ment and Injunctive Relief 0.0.0.0... Exhibit A—Notice of Discontinuance of Grant Dated Pobermary &, 19GB. ....:................0.cscese Affidavit of Richard Kwasnik in Support of Complaint Affidavit of Richard Kwasnik in Support of Complaint Exhibit 1—Decision After Hearing ....................... Exhibit 2—Request for Fair Hearing .................. Affidavit of Esther Lett in Support of Complaint .... Affidavit of David Gilman in Support of Complaint ... Affidavit of Luis M. Neco in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion and in Joinder of Defendants’ Cross-Mo- i SS ee ee ee Pena Affidavit of Merrill Charlton in Opposition to Plain- tiffs’ Motion and in Support of Remaining De- fendants’ Cross-Motion .............. oad Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs in Support of Defendants’ NRE eee pee apr tenner canta rire mee ED mr Supplemental Affidavit of Merrill Charlton in Sup- port of Defendants’ Motions erect Exhibit A—Note Dated February 28, 1968 ....... Affidavit of David Gilman in rieeacsasil of Foregoing Complaint ............... eRe ee ROUTER yee eM TANG): 98a _ 104a 109a llla _ 118a 1l4a III PAGE Supplemental Affidavit of Merrill Charlton in Sup- port of Defendants’ Motions ...........0..0.0.0.00000000000... 118a Affidavit of Samuel Felder in Support of Defendants’ RA LT SEER RSD ET EDS Cart Cee RE OE 121a Supplemental Affidavit of Luis M. Neco in Support of I he nla dans snois 124a Supplemental Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs in Support I I oa ccccncnsncescor nsee 125a Exhibit—Newly Adopted Section 351.26 127a OG I cts ices Sess niaicann 131la Np ee SO oni. asc das usanetpacseninting 139a Rr Te i se sccususinanccmantacerouapinl 140a Amending Order of Bryan, D.J. 0000.0. 14la Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defend- RE eae: OR ene Rann 143a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg in Support of Defend- TIME Sec oe a on lee 145a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg in Support of Defend- RN he ine er ote 147a Exhibit 1—New Procedure for Clients’ Right of NIE ihitketecsc ie Colter eens ga tai ee | 149a Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defend- I PIN I ich ccs ciecadeccaesccsnsaeceanch sodebncses 150a Iv PAGE Affidavit of John H. Sachs in Support of Defendants’ Motions .....:c” yeaa aceite of Defendants Wy- man et al. Ron ee s EY ORGANI, Order to Transmit Papers a ea 410a Affidavit of John J. Loflin in Support of Motion for Order to Transmit Papers ... RATAN ) eS SI A te ee G ae ee al BPs Ch SE Bil 4: ‘ ee i. p =. re ee > ! as tenia te cig fae ee ae blee § “Ny eihi Te i F A nde Vasant. ay 3 DT, — teat ne. at ‘eee Las Ea eek 7 id . 5 tata oe i v- Eine | | GD os. reed! any. actrgidl z Mea i ite, = dog. thes 2 a tatan ‘ile ~tiini= Skaahcntp ii nist anitts ip nhiindls as 5h ie et pryeee en test oo pen cacy 116a Affidavit of David Gilman in Support of Foregoing Complaint IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For tHe SoutHEeRN District or New York [Same Tite] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Davip Gruman, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, and I am employed as an attorney in the Legal Service Unit of Mobilization For Youth, Inc., 759 Tenth Avenue, New York, New York. In this capacity Iam — of Counsel to Harold J. Rothwax, the attorney of record — for Mrs. Ruby Sheafe, Plaintiff in the above-entitled ac- tion. 2. Your deponent has been informed that Mrs. Sheafe’s employer, Dr. Hartung has commenced his vacation as of March 15, 1968, and will not return to New York City until the middle of April, thereby, leaving Mrs. Sheafe without part time employment. 3. Mrs. Sheafe has informed your deponent, that her rent has not been paid since her assistance has been ter- minated, that her landlord has threatened to evict her, and that she has no money for food. Mrs. Sheafe has stated that she has not been able to afford to eat regularly. 117a Affidavit of David Gilman 4. In order that Mrs. Sheafe have money to buy food last week, your deponent made available $15.00 for Mrs. Sheafe, out of his own pocket. 5. Your deponent contends that without immediate restoration of Mrs. Sheafe to the Relief Rolls, she faces the stark reality of starvation and eviction. David Gilman (Sworn to March 19, 1968.) 118a Supplemental Affidavit of Merrill Charlton in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions and in Support of Defendants’ Motions UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For tHe SoutHern District or New York [Same Tit.e] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Merritt Cuarzton, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an assistant attorney in the Legal Division of the Department of Social Services of the City of New York, and submit this affidavit in further support of Defendant Jack R. Goldberg’s opposition to plaintiffs’ motions and in support of the remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint herein. 2. I have been duly admitted and actively engaged in the practice of law in all courts of record of the State of New York since 1939, and am also a member of the bar of this Court and of the Supreme Court of the United States. 3. On Friday, March 22, 1968, attorney Gilman advised me that a Fair Hearing on the propriety of the discontinv- 119a Supplemental Affidavit of Merrill Charlton ance of public assistance was scheduled to be held for Ruby Sheafe on the morning of Monday, March 25, 1968, before the State Department of Social Services, and he requested my help, which was given, to assure that this Hearing would be held and not adjourned. I have verified that such hearing was held. 4. In my previous affidavit (presently before this Court) sworn to March 14, 1968, I indicated that Ruby Sheafe alone caused the Department to discontinue her grant be- cause she refused to permit collateral visits to her current and former employers by Department representatives to verify her employment earnings record as periodically re- quired under the Social Welfare Law and its implementing provisions of the Department’s Manual of Policies govern- ing public assistance, as well as her refusal to furnish the Department authentic medical information establishing her claim that she is physically incapable of full time employ- ment. Thus, the Department was required to discontinue because Ruby Sheafe failed to sustain under the law, her burden of establishing her continuing eligibility and she rejected the Department’s offer to assist her in establish- ing such eligibility. The fact therefore must be stressed that if this plaintiff is genuinely eligible for public assist- ance, her reinstatement to the rolls lies completely in her hands; and her previous removal therefrom stems entirely from her own conduct, all of which had been told to her (before and since her removal) by the Department’s repre- sentatives, and I made her attorney Mr. Gilman thoroughly aware thereof. 120a Supplemental Affidavit of Merrill Charlton Wuenrerore, I respectfully urge that plaintiffs’ motions be denied and that defendants’ motions dismissing both complaints herein be granted. Merrill Charlton (Sworn to March 25, 1968.) 121a Affidavit of Samuel Felder in Support of Defendants’ Motions UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For tHe SoutHern District OF New York [Same Titi] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Samugy Fevper, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am counsel to the Department of Social Services of the City of New York, and am submitting this affidavit in re- sponse to those allegations in the affidavit of Marianne J. Rosenfield, sworn to March 18, 1968, which attribute statements to me which are inaccurate and misleading. It is true that I had a telephone conversation with Mrs. Rosenfield. However, at no time during this conversation, which took place after March 1, 1968, did I state, as alleged in paragraph #12 of her affidavit, that the regulations which had been duly promulgated and by their terms, effective March 1, 1968, were not effective or that my De- partment would not comply with them. What I did say was that the regulations were promulgated without notice to us and we did not learn of their existence until less than a week before the effective date so that we had no oppor- tunity to take all the steps necessary to implement the regulation which provides review hearings for recipients whose grants are about to be suspended or discontinued ; that it was virtually impossible for so large a city organi- zation as ours to make the new procedures effectively func- tional on the spot, particularly since about 10,000 cases monthly would now be affected, and that the administra- 122a Answering Affidavit of Samuel Felder tive complexities are too great, involving as they do wide. spread promulgation and special training of staff. How. ever, I made it quite clear to Miss Rosenfield that the City had every intention to implement the new regulations and that we are now exerting great efforts in developing plans for as early an implementation as the circumstances will permit. I further suggested to Miss Rosenfield that to insure against any hardships that might result during the interim before the new procedures became fully operational, that if she should on behalf of her client (Mrs. Fuente) prompt. ly file a request for a hearing before the State Department of Social Services, I would arrange for the continuance of public assistance on an emergency basis and in this way assure such continued assistance until a determination could be had in her case. Miss Rosenfield indicated to me that this was satisfactory to her. I thereupon promptly arranged for Mrs. Fuente’s assistance on an emergency basis to be resumed in order that she could have the bene- fits equal to those provided under the new regulations. The fact that despite the directions given the Welfare Center to continue the full assistance grant, through insufficient understanding of the effect of these new regulations, Mrs. Fuente’s semi-monthly grant of $99.87 was paid in three parts on successive days, all of which points up the enor- mity of our task, and will include not only formulating procedures and guidelines but also assembling and train- ing the staff needed to put the new regulations into opera- tion. It should be of further interest to this Court to know that Miss Rosenfield’s office is aware that we have been working diligently to develop procedures which will forge the spirit and the letter underlying these new regulations into effective tools for furthering the interests of recipients. Recently we submitted drafts of our proposed implementa- — 123a Answering Affidavit of Samuel Felder tion procedures to various community action groups, in- cluding Mobilization For Youth, Inc., the organization Miss Rosenfield represents, for their views and suggestions thereon; we also met with these groups and explored these matters at length; there appeared to be general agreement among them that the magnitude and complexity of our problems did not lend themselves to quick and easy solu- tions, and the incomplete functioning of our implementa- tion under the new regulations at this time was not due to the causes suggested by Miss Rosenfield in her affidavit. The fact is that by continuing public assistance in cases where recipients request a Fair Hearing before the State Department of Social Services, we are acting in entire compliance with the spirit and intent of the new regulations pending their successful fulfillment. Samuel Felder (Sworn to before me March 25, 1968.) 124a Supplemental Affidavit of Luis M. Neco in Support of Defendants’ Motions UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For tur Soutruern District or New Yorx {Same Trr.e] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Luis M. Neco, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the office of J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York and attorney for defendant Jack R. Goldberg, Com- missioner of Social Services of the City of New York. 2. I make this affidavit to supplement my affidavit dated April 5, 1968, in which I apprised the Court that the State and City Departments of Social Services were negotiating a substantial revision or replacement of the State Com- missioner’s pre-suspension administrative review regula- tion. 3. This office is informed that defendant Goldberg antic ipates that said revision or replacement may occur during the week of April 15, 1968. 4. The undersigned will seek to keep the Court advised of further developments relevant to this action. Luis M. Neco (Sworn to April 12, 1968.) 125a Supplemental Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs in Support of Defendants’ Motions UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Souruern District or New York [Same Trt.e] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Jor: H. Sacus, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am an Assistant Attorney General in the office of Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of the State of New York, attorney for defendants Wyman, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Jones Chairman of the State Board of Social Welfare, Adams, Heights, Kimmerer, Galbraith, Johannes, Hopkins, Me- Conville, Hale, Hostein, Klingenstein, Berlinger, Jackson, Lopez and Bernstein, as members of the Board of Social Welfare. I am fully familiar with the facts and cireum- stances surrounding this case. I make this supplemental affidavit to apprise this Court of recent developments re- lated to the instant proceedings. On Thursday, April 25, 1968 at a meeting called at the request of the New York City Department of Social Serv- ices and the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office, attended by Joseph H. Loucheim, Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Felix Infausto, Esq., counsel to the New York State De- partment of Social Services, Philip Kahaner, Esq., Assist- ant Attorney General in charge of the Litigation Bureau, Joel H. Sachs, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Jack R. Goldberg, Commissioner of the City of New York Depart- ment of Social Services, Samuel Felder, Esq., counsel to 126a Supplemental Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs the New York City Department of Social Services, Norman Redlich, Esq., Executive Assistant Corporation Counsel, John Loflin, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel in charge of the Litigation Bureau, and Luis M. Neco, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel, and after discussions carried out over a six hour period, it was decided that the New York State Department of Social Services Regulation 351.26 (defendant Wyman’s Exhibit ‘‘A’’) presently in effect be repealed and a new Regulation 351.26 be adopted. On Friday, April 26, 1968 the annexed Regulation 351.26 was promulgated by New York State Department of Social Services Commissioner George K. Wyman. This new Reg- ulation supersedes defendant Wyman’s Exhibit ‘‘ A’’ which is before the Court at the present time. This new Regv- lation is to take effect immediately. Wuenreror:, it is respectfully requested that plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction, the convening of a three-judge court and an order that the instant matter proceed as a class action be, in all respects, denied. Joel H. Sachs (Sworn to April 29, 1968.) 127a Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit Newly Adopted Section 351.26 of Official Regulation of the New York State Department of Social Services Pursuant to the provisions of sections 20 and 34 of the Social Services Law, I, George K. Wyman, Commissioner of Social Services, do hereby amend in part, as hereinafter indicated, Part 351 of Article 1 of Subchapter B of the Official Regulations of the State Department of Social Services, being Chapter II of Title 18 NYCRR, effective immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Section 351.26 is hereby Repeauep and a new section to be section 351.26 is hereby added to read as follows: 351.26. Proposed discontinuance or suspension of grant; prior notice to recipient ; additional local review and subsequent determination. When a social services official proposes to discontinue or suspend a grant of public assistance he shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of either subdivision (a) or (b) below: (a) He shall notify the recipient in writing of his intention to discontinue or suspend the grant at least seven days prior to the proposed effective date of the discontinuance or suspension, together with the rea- sons for his intended action, unless such discontinuance or suspension is in response to the request of the recip- ient or is due to: the death of the recipient who is an unattached person; the recipient’s admission to an institution wherein his assistance may not be con- tinued; the recipient’s whereabouts being unknown to the social services official because the recipient moved from his last known address without notifying the social services official and without leaving a forwarding address; the recipient’s moving from the state and 128a Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit establishing his permanent home elsewhere; the recip. ient’s case having been reclassified as to category, Such notification shall further advise the recipient that if he makes a request therefor he will be afforded an opportunity to appear at the time and place indicated in the notice before the person identified therein who will review his case with him and will afford him opportunity to present such written and oral relevant evidence and reasons as the recipient may have to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or suspended, and that the recipient may appear and present such evidence and reasons on his behalf with or without the assistance of an attorney or other repre- sentative. Only the social services official or an em- ployee of his social services department who occupies a position superior to that of the supervisor who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension shall be designated to make such a review. When a recipient requests such a review the designated person shall, at the time and place indicated in the notice to the recipient, review with the recipient and his repre- sentative, if any, the evidence and reasons supporting the proposed action and shall thereupon afford the recipient opportunity to present relevant evidence and to state reasons why the proposed discontinuance or suspension should not be made. When such a review has been made by a designated employee, such em- ployee shall promptly make an appropriate written recommendation to the social services official, together with his reasons therefor, including reference to appli- cable provisions of law, Board rules, Department regu- lations, and approved local policy. After such a re- view the social services official shall expeditiously determine whether the proposed discontinuance or sus- pension shall or shall not be made effective as proposed, after considering all the evidence before him and the — 129a Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit recommendation, if any, of the employee designated by him to review the proposed action with the recipient. The social services official shall then promptly send an appropriate written notice of his decision to the recip- ‘ent and his representative, if any, and to the Depart- ment’s area office. Assistance shall not be discontinued or suspended prior to the date such notice of decision is sent to the recipient and his representative, if any, or prior to the proposed effective date of discontinu- ance or suspension, whichever occurs later. (b) A social services official may adopt a local procedure concerning discontinuance or suspension of grants of public assistance and submit to the Depart- ment such procedure for its approval. Upon approval such local procedure shall become effective. Such local procedure must include the following: (1) Notice to the recipient of proposed discon- tinuance or suspension of the grant at least seven days prior to the proposed effective date of the discontinuance or suspension, together with the reasons for the intended action, unless such discon- tinuance or suspension is in response to the request of the recipient or is due to: the death of the re- cipient who is an unattached person; the recipient’s admission to an institution wherein his assistance may not be continued; the recipient’s whereabouts being unknown to the social services official because the recipient moved from his last known address without notifying the social services official and with- out leaving a forwarding address; the recipient’s moving from the state and establishing his perma- nent home elsewhere; the recipient’s case having been reclassified as to category. ; (2) The notice must advise the recipient that, if he so requests, the proposed discontinuance or sus- 130a Exhibit Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit pension will be reviewed and he may submit in writ. ing a statement or other evidence to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or sus. pended. (3) A review of the proposed discontinuance or suspension shall be made by the social services official or an employee of his social services department who occupies a position superior to that of the super. visor who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension. (4) After review of the relevant materials in the recipient’s file including any written material sub- mitted by him the decision shall be made expedi- tiously as to whether the proposed discontinuance or suspension shall or shall not be made effective as proposed. Appropriate written notice of the deci- sion shall be sent to the recipient and to the Depart- ment’s area office. Assistance shall not be discon- tinued or suspended prior to the date such notice of decision is sent to the recipient and his repre- sentative, if any, or prior to the proposed effective date of discontinuance or suspension, whichever occurs later. Signed: George K. Wyman Commissioner Date: April 26, 1968 This is to certify that this is the original of an order of the State Department of Social Serv- ices, made on April 26, 1968, amending in part, section 351.26 of the Official Regulations of the State Department of Social Services, be- ing Chapter II of Title 18, NYCRR. Signed: George K. Wyman Commissioner Date: April 26, 1968 _ 13la Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SourHern District or New YorK [Same TitLE] MEMORANDUM Bryan, District Judge: The present suit is one of the growing number in which welfare recipients are challenging the fairness of the pro- cedures by which the system of public assistance is admin- istered. See, e.g., Thompson v. Shapiro, 270 F. Supp. 331 (D. Conn. 1967), prob. juris. noted, 36 U.S.L. Week 813 (Jan. 15, 1968) ; Smith v. King, 277 F. Supp. 331 (M.D. Ala. 1967), prob. juris. noted, 36 U.S.L. Week 3297. The eight individual plaintiffs in this consolidated action are all New York City residents whose welfare assistance has been ter- minated without a prior hearing. They attack the validity of the rules and regulations promulgated by the defendants _the Commissioner of the State Department of Social Services, the individual members of the State Board of Social Welfare, and the Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services—which permitted ter- mination of assistance prior to hearing. The complaint, seeking declaratory and injunctive re- lief, is based on the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§1343(3) (4). Plaintiffs have moved for convocation of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2281-84, a preliminary in- junction, and a class action order pursuant to Rule 23(c), FR.C.P. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for mootness, and for want of standing to sue. The individual plaintiffs fall into two groups. Four of them—Kelley, Young, DeJesus and Sheafe—were recipi- 132a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. ents of Home Relief pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Welfare Law §§167-65, a state and locally funded program not subject to the requirements of the Social Security Act. At the time this complaint was filed, the state regulations evidently did not require a hearing either prior or subsequent to termina- tion of home relief assistance. On January 16, 1968, how- ever, the defendant State Board amended the regulations concerning fair hearings subsequent to termination and made them applicable to Home Relief recipients. See 18 N.Y.C.R.R. pt. 84.3-.23. In addition, home relief recipi- ents are evidently covered by the new procedure for a limited local review prior to termination, pursuant to Regv- lation 351.26 of the State Department of Social Services, promulgated April 26, 1968." The remaining four plaintiffs—McKinney, Frye, Guz- man and Lett—were recipients of Aid to Dependent Chil- dren. N.Y. Soc. Welfare Law §§343-62. ADC is one of the federally assisted categorical aid programs admin- istered under the Social Security Law, 42 U.S.C. §§601-09 (1964), as amended (Supp. I, 1965). Pursuant to the man- date of the federal statute,” 42 U.S.C. §602(a) (4), the state 1. When this suit was commenced no prior hearing of any sort was provided. In response to the present action, and similar actions in other states, the State Department promulgated Regulation 351.26, effective March 1, 1968. This regulation was unacceptable to the City Department. After negotiations between the City and State Department the new regulation, which provides local agencies with two options, was adopted. 2. While §602(a)(4) is not clear as to when a fair hearing must be held, the HEW regulation thereunder implies that a hearing after termination or suspension is sufficient. See HEW, Handbook of Public Assistance Administration pt. IV, §6331. A claim of inconsistency between a state statute or regulation and a federal statute, however, does not warrant convocation of a three-judge court. Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 (1965). But if the jurisdiction of the three-judge court is otherwise properly in- voked, it is free to decide the case on the ground that the state stat- ute conflicts with the federal law, or that the federal regulation is not authorized by the federal statute. See United States v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378 (1932). _— 133a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. statute provides a fair hearing subsequent to termination. N.Y. Soc. Welfare Law §353. Present recipients of ADC faced with termination would also be entitled to the notice and local review provided by new Regulation 351.26, and the New York City plan implementing that regulation ap- — proved by the State Department May 1, 1968. The plaintiffs’ basic claim is that the state cannot, con- sonant with due process, terminate public assistance with- out affording the recipient a prior hearing. They point to the cases requiring a hearing at a meaningful point in the administrative process, and argue that the extraor- dinary hardship worked upon a recipient by loss of aid compels the conclusion that the meaningful point for hear- ing is prior to termination. See Note, Withdrawal of Public Welfare: The Right to a Prior Hearing, 76 Yale LJ. 1234 (1967). The defendants apparently agree with this proposition, since, as explained earlier, they have amended the rules to provide for review at the local level prior to termination. In supplementary filed papers, the plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy of the procedures provided by new Regulation 351.26 to satisfy the require- ments of due process. i Does the ease in its present posture require convocation of a three-judge court? The defendants raise several ob- jections at the outset. First, they argue that the individual plaintiffs, having failed to invoke the fair hearing procedure after their terminations, have not exhausted their available remedies. While this procedure would only have been available to four of the plaintiffs, in my view exhaustion of a remedy of 3. See Opp Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Administrator, 312 U.S. 126, 152-53 (1941); Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1 (1938) ; Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908) ; compare Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965); Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 386 U.S. 670 (1967). 134a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. this sort is not required in a case brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. See Damico v. California, 389 U.S. 416 (1967) (per curiam); McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 (1963). Second, defendants urge that the case is moot, based on affidavits showing that most of the plaintiffs are now re. ceiving public assistance on an emergency basis. Judi- cial determination of questions of this importance cannot thus be evaded and, in any event, dismissal is not appro- priate when the individuals purport to represent a class. Finally, noting that the thrust of plaintiffs’ complaint is directed at state and local administrative regulations, defendants argue that a three-judge court is not required under 28 U.S.C. §2281. This claim is not without merit, particularly in view of the traditional reluctance of courts, based on needs of judicial economy, to invoke the three- judge procedure. See United States v. Interstate Com- merce Commission, 337 U.S. 426 (1949) ; Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Vincent, 375 F.2d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir. 1967). How- ever, where the regulations are of broad applicability, and embody legislative policy on a state-wide basis, three-judge courts have been deemed appropriate. See Oklahoma Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U.S. 290 (1923); Note, Federal Review of State Welfare Practices, 67 Colum. L. Rev. 84, 106-08 (1967); compare McWood Corp. v. State Corporate Comm’n, 237 F. Supp. 963 (D. N.M. 1965). In my view, a three-judge court is appropriate where, as here, the regu- lations attacked implement important state social and eco- nomic policy. Il. The remaining question is whether the constitutional issues presented by the complaint, in the present posture of the case, are substantial. Defendants urge that the procedures provided by Regulation 351.26 fully satisfy the requirements of due process and, in essence, meet the 135a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, DJ. demands of the original complaint. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, claim several deficiencies in the new procedures and to illustrate their objections, contrast the new regulation with the procedures provided upon a fair hearing after termination. Specifically, they complain that the new pro- cedures do not provide for confrontation and cross-exami- nation of witnesses, or for an independent hearing exam- ‘ner The rules governing fair hearings, on the other hand, plainly provide for confrontation and cross-examina- tion, and are held before state hearing officers specially employed for this purpose. In short, plaintiffs’ demand is for a trial-type hearing prior to termination, rather than a documentary review. Cases requiring that administrative hearings be held before agency action directly affecting personal well-being pecomes final are increasingly common. See, e.g., Gonzalez y, Freeman, 334 F.2d 570 (D.C. Cir. 1964) ; Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1964) ; Homer v. Richmond, 999 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1961). These cases, however, shed little light on the type of hearing required. One test which seems to be evolving requires the court to balance the private right against the government interest to determine the nature of the hearing. See Wasson v. Trowbridge, 382 4. Regulation 351.26 provides local agencies with two options. Under subdivision (a) the local agency must give seven days written notice before suspension of aid, specifying the reasons for suspension. The recipient is entitled to appear before a local social services official occupying a position superior to the person who ap- proved the suspension, and present oral and written relevant evidence and reasons on his behalf, with the aid of counsel or other represent- ative. The official then reviews the evidence with the recipient and his representative and makes his decision. Under subdivision (b), the option elected by New York City, the same notice requirements prevail. No oral evidence or witnesses, however, are permitted. The recipient or his representative is only entitled to submit in writing a statement or other evidence demon- strating why his grant should be continued. The local official then reviews the case file, and the statement submitted by the recipient, and makes his determination. 136a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. F.2d 807 (2d Cir. 1967) ; Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961). A _ trial-type hearing is more often required where the matter to be adjudicated relates to an individual’s eligibility under or compliance with established standards, rather than a ques. tion of the validity of the standards themselves. See Will ner v. Committee on Character, 373 U.S. 96 (1963) ; Gold. smith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 (1926); 1 Davis, Administrative Law §§7.01-.05 (1958 & Supp. 1965), In resolving questions of a factual nature, it is felt that the traditional safeguards of confrontation and cross-exami- nation are required. Cf. Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S, 474 (1959). In my view the question of whether a trial-type hearing is required before termination of welfare benefits presents a substantial constitutional issue. The burden placed upon the state and local governments by having to continue to make payments during the pendency of the hearing and decision is slight and has already been assumed by them under the present regulation. The demand that full hear. ings would make upon agency manpower and funds is no doubt more substantial. When contrasted, however, with the plight of a recipient cut off from all aid while waiting for a full hearing upon appeal to the state agency, I cannot say that the answer is so clear as to make the issue pre- sented constitutionally insubstantial. It should also be pointed out that the type of questions presented by the terminations alleged in the complaint appear to be questions of fact going to the eligibility of the recipients for aid under present standards. The com- 5. Where the questions presented raise only issues of law, trial- type hearings are not required. See F.C.C. v. W.J.R., 337 U.S. 265 (1949). Nor is confrontation or cross-examination required where the hearing is deemed investigatory, see Hannah v. Larche, 363 US. 420 (1960); Anonymous No. 6 v. Baker, 360 U.S. 287 (1959), or the ruling made is simply advisory. See Norwegian Nitrogen Prods. Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294 (1933). ~~ 137a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, DJ. plaint does not challenge any of the standards purportedly relied on by the defendants in terminating assistance, but only the application of those standards to the individual plaintiffs. Questions of this sort are customarily resolved by trial-type hearings. Finally, in three other cases presenting similar issues, three-judge courts have been convoked. See Williams v. Gandy, Civ. No. @C6728 (N.D. Miss. 1967); Wheeler v. Montgomery, Civ. No. 48303 (W.D. Calif. 1967); Laze v. Downing, Civ. No. 7-2089-C-2 (S.D. Iowa 1967). Conse- quently, I conclude that the issues presented by this com- plaint are not insubstantial and should be heard by a three- judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2281-84, Il. Plaintiffs have also moved for an order pursuant to Rule 23(c), F.R.C.P., permitting this case to be maintained as a class action. That rule provides that such a determi- nation shall be made ‘‘as soon as practicable after the commencement of an action brought as a class action.’’ While it may be that common questions of law and fact are present here, none of the parties has submitted facts from which I could determine the membership of the class, the adequacy of plaintiffs’ representation of the class, the question of possible sub-classes, or the type of notice which would be required. Therefore, I conclude that it is not yet practicable to make the determination required by Rule 23(e). IV. Plaintiffs also pray for a temporary injunction directing that defendants restore the individual plaintiffs to the welfare rolls and refrain from terminating benefits of other recipients without prior hearings. Since it appears that the individual plaintiffs are presently receiving some bene- a 138a Opinion No. 34801 of Bryan, D.J. fits, at least on an emergency basis, and in view of the promulgation of the new regulations providing for a form of hearing prior to termination, I do not feel that a tem- porary injunction is required at this time pending hearing before the full court on the merits. ¥. In accordance with these views, I will notify the Chief Judge of this Circuit that the consolidated action should be heard before a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2281-84. The defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should also be heard before the full court. Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary injunctive relief is denied. It is so ordered. Dated: New York, N.Y. May 17, 1968 Frederick vP. Bryan United States District Judge 139a Order of Bryan, D.J., Filed May 28, 1968 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutHern District or New York [Same TitLeE] 1. These causes, including all applications of the parties for temporary and final relief, will be heard before the court of three judges duly designated herein on June 26, 1968, at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 1505, United States Court House, Foley Square, New York, N.Y. 9, All motions addressed to the three judge court, in- duding supporting papers and briefs, will be served and filed not later than June 10, 1968. 3. All answering papers and briefs will be served and filed not later than June 17, 1968. 4. Any reply papers or briefs will be served and filed not later than 12:00 o’clock noon on June 24, 1968. 5. The parties will fully comply with Rule 25 of the General Rules of this Court. It is so ordered. Dated: New York, N.Y. May 27, 1968 Frederick vP. Bryan United States District Judge 7 140a Order of Lumbard, C.J., Designating Three-Judge Court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutTHEeRN District or New York [Same Titte] Having been notified by the Honorable Frederick vanPelt Bryan, United States District Judge for the South- ern District of New York, that an application has been filed in the above matter for relief pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Section 2281, pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Section 2284 I hereby designate the following judges, in addition to the Honorable Frederick vanPelt Bryan, to hear and determine said cause as provided by law: Honorable Wilfred Feinberg, United States Cireuit Judge, and Honorable Edward C. Helsan, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Ir Is Heresy Orpverep that this order be filed in the above entitled cause in the said District Court. J. Edward Lumbard Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Dated: New York, N. Y. May 23, 1968 l4la Order of Bryan, D.J., Amending Order Filed May 28, 1968 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutuerNn District or New York [Same Tite] The order heretofore entered in these causes dated May 27, 1968, is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Defendants’ motions heretofore made to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Rule 12(b), F.R.C.P., and the mo- tions of defendants and plaintiffs hereinafter referred to, will be heard before the court of three judges, duly desig- nated herein, on June 26, 1968, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1505, United States Court House, Foley Square, New York, N.Y. 2. Any additional briefs in support of defendants’ mo- tions to dismiss the complaints, any motions by defendants for summary judgment on the ground that the procedures provided by statute and regulation are adequate on their face, and briefs and papers in support thereof, and any motions by plaintiffs for discovery, for a determination that these are class actions under Rule 23, F.R.C.P., or for intervention by additional parties plaintiffs, and papers and briefs in support thereof, will be served and filed not later than June 17, 1968. 3. Any answering papers or briefs will be served and filed not later than 12 o’clock noon on June 24, 1968. 142a Order of Bryan, D.J. 4. Pending the hearing by the court of three judges on June 26, 1968, all discovery and inspection by plaintiff; is stayed. 5. The parties will fully comply with Rule 25 of the General Rules of this Court. It is so ordered. Dated: New York, N.Y. June 11, 1968 Frederick vP. Bryan United States District Judge 143a Notice of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutHern District or New York [Same TitLE] Sirs: Puease Take Notice that upon the complaints in the above entitled consolidated actions, the affidavits of Jack R. Goldberg, sworn to on May 8, 1968 and June 14th 1968, the undersigned will move this Court of three Judges in Courtroom 1505, United States Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, N.Y., on the 26th day of June, 1968 at 10:30 A.M. for an order pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting a summary judgment to de- fendant Jack R. Goldberg, dismissing the complaint as to him on the basis that the procedures relating to the termi- nation of public assistance provided by statute and regula- tions are adequate on their face, that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that said defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York June 17, 1968. Yours &., J. Lee Rankin Corporation Counsel By John J. Loflin Assistant Corporation Counsel 144a Notice of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment To: Hon. Wilfred Feinberg U.S. Cireuit Judge U. S. Courthouse Foley Square New York, N.Y. Hon. Edward C. McLean U.S. District Judge U.S. Courthouse Foley Square New York, N.Y. Hon. Frederick van Pelt Bryan U.S. District Judge U. S. Courthouse Foley Square New York, N.Y. Hon. Louis J. Lefkowitz Attorney General of the State of New York 80 Centre Street New York, N.Y. Lee A. Albert, Esq. Henry A. Freedman, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs 145a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg in Support of Foregoing Motion IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For tHE SouTHERN District or New York [Same TitLE] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Jack R. Gopsere, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and one of the defendants in this action. I submit this affidavit to apprise the Court of the present status of New York State Department of Social Services Regulation 351.26. Regulation 351.26, which was effective March 1, 1968 and which could not be implemented for rea- sons already submitted to this Court, was repealed by the New York State Department of Social Services on April 26, 1968 and a new Regulation 351.26 was promulgated in place thereof. A copy of the new regulation is annexed to these papers and marked Exhibit ‘‘A”’. In accordance with the option contained in the new Regulation we promptly submitted te the New York State Department of Social Services for its review and approval, a proposed local procedure concerning discontinuance or suspension of grants of public assistance. A copy of the procedure is annexed hereto as Exhibit ‘‘B’’. On or about May 6, 1968, my office received~a letter dated May 1, 1968 from the State Department of Social Services informing us that our local procedure was ap- 146a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg proved effective May 1, 1968. A copy of that letter is an nexed as Exhibit ‘‘C’’. It is my intention to implement the new Regulation by placing the newly approved procedure into operation a the earliest possible moment. Even assuming that we wil not encounter any opposition from local 371, A.F.S.C.M.E. AFL-CIO, which organization has a labor contract coverin, the employees who will be designated to serve as reviey officers, I would estimate that approximately three week will be required before the new procedure can become full operational. Under the Regulation the review officers mus occupy positions superior to those of the supervisors whe approved the proposed discontinuances or suspensions o public assistance. In order to obtain the best qualified personnel for this task, we will have to draw upon the limited number of supervisory employees in the higher category and train them to perform the function required under the procedure. Their replacements will also hav: to be trained to assume the duties and responsibilities of the positions left by the designated review officers to pre. vent serious disruption and dislocations in the on-going operations of the Department. I intend to accelerate every effort toward the effective achievement of the goal of mak. ing the new procedure operational as soon as possible. Jack R. Goldberg, Ed.D (Sworn to May 8, 1968.) 147a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg in Support of Foregoing Motion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutHern District or New York {Same Tit.eE] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Jack R. Goupsere, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York and one of the defendants in this action. I submit this affidavit to apprise the Court of the present status of our implementation of the new Regulation 351.26 of the New York State Department of Social Services, which became effective April 26, 1968. In accordance with the option contained in the new Regulation referred to (Sec. 351.26(b)), this Department submitted to the State Department for its review and approval, a proposed procedure concerning a recipient’s right to review in cases of intended discontinuance or sus- pension of grants of public assistance. On or about May 6, 1968 we received a letter from the State Department of Social Services advising that our local procedure was ap- proved effective May 1, 1968. (A copy of this letter is annexed to my prior affidavit of May 8, 1968 and marked Exhibit C.) 148a Affidavit of Jack R. Goldberg I previously informed this Court in my affidavit of May 8, 1968 that I intended to implement the new Regulation by placing the newly approved procedure into operation at the earliest possible moment but for reasons stated I esti. mated that approximately three weeks would be required before the new procedure could become fully operational. On or about May 21, 1968, our new procedure (No 68-18 attached) went out to all the Welfare Centers of the De. partment, and on May 27, 1968 became continuously opera- tional throughout the City. Jack R. Goldberg (Sworn to June 14, 1968.) Exhibit 1 Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit New Procedure for Clients’ Rights of Review (See Opposite =>) THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CLIENTS' RIGHT OF REVIEW IN CASES PROCEDURE NO. 68-18 OF PROPOSED SUSPENSION OR DISCONTINUANCE OF ASSISTANCE May 21, 1968 10: Administrative Group Classification 34 Case Unit Replaces: P 68-15 (34) Dietribution: C Effective: Immediately I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose: With the approval of the State Department of Social Services this procedure implements the new State policy which insures that the clients’ rights are protected in cases where it is proposed that assistance be suspended or discontinued. This new policy in no way limits the client's right to request a Fair Hearing, in accordance with existing policy, and requires that assistance be contimued until completion of the administrative review. B. Program: l. The State Department of Social Services has promulgated a new regula- tion which assures the client of the opportunity for a Department review by an employee who occupies a position superior to that of the employee who approved the proposed discontinuance or suspension of assist- ance. For purposes of this procedure, this employee shall be defined as the Review Officer. 2, In situations, other than those listed below, notification must be sent to the client of the intent to suspend or discontinue assistance seven (7) calendar days prior to the planned effective date of such action. a. death of unattached person >. admitted to institution (mental, penal, correctional, etc.) c. client's request for discontinuance of assistance d. client's whereabouts unknown and there is no forwarding address e. client has left the State permanently f. reclassification as to category 3. Upon receipt of information that the client requests an administrative review, the case shall be forwarded to the Review Officer along with all written material submitted by the client. 4. The Review Officer shall promptly review the case record, the recommenda- tions of the Case Unit and the written material, if any, submitted by the client with his request for a review. (cver) See ~--- yo, 68-18 Page 2 a May 21, 1968 5. Immediately after such review, the Review Officer shall make an appro- priate written determination as to whether or not assistance shall be discontinued, detailing the relevant facts and including all evidence submitted at the time of the review, as well as any reference to appli- cable provisions of the Social Services Law, Rules of the State Board of Social Welfare and Regulations of the State Department of Social Services, and approved local policy. 6. Based on the determination of the Review Officer, the Case Unit shall take appropriate action (to close or contime assistance) and notify the client of the determination by means of the appropriate letter. ¢, Forms Used Title Origin M-3c (New) Notice of Intent to Suspend or Case Unit 5/13/68 Discontinue Assistance M-3d (New) Notice of Decision after Review Case Unit 5/13/68 to Contimue Public Assistance M- 3h Notice of Discontimance of Public Case Unit (Rev. 5/13/68) Assistance M-3e (New) Decision after Review to Discontinue Case Unit 5/13/68 Public Assistance II. DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS Caseworker 1. Records, in detail, discussion with the client and the rea- sons for the proposed suspension or discontinuance of assist- ance, including the appropriate closing code. . 2. Prepares Form M-3c, “Notice of Intent to Suspend or Discon- timue Assistance", in triplicate (two copies to be sent to the client and one copy to be retained in case record). Makes appropriate case record entry. NOTE: On Form M-3c, the dates entered in Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be identical. ” 3. Forwards case record and all copies of Form M-3c, together with a return envelope identified with caseload number, to Unit Supervisor. Unit 4. Reviews case record and Form M-3c. If in agreement, signs Supervisor case record entry and Form M-3c. Arranges for immediate mailing of two copies to the client and retains one copy in case record. Controls Forms M-3c and date of their return on separate Form W-708, headed "Proposed Suspension or Discontin- uance of Assistance". : 5. Reviews Form W-708 daily. If client fails to respond to Form M-3c, within the seven days provided or indicates agreement to have his case closed, instructs Caseworker to pre- pare the necessary forms for closing action in accordance with current procedure, using Form M-3h. may 22, 1968 _ Unit supervisor Review officer Unit Supervisor Caseworker PROCEDURE Page 3 NO. 68-18 6. If the client requests a review, makes appropriate entry on Form W-708; immediately forwards the case record with any written documents, relevant to the proposed action, submitted by the client, to the Review Officer. NOTE: The Case Unit is responsible for all service to the client pending the review and receipt of the determination from the Review Officer either to close the case or continue assistance. 7. Immediately reviews the case record and written material, if any, submitted by the client, and prepares & memorandum, setting forth the relevant facts and his determination to continue or discontinue assistance, including any reference to applicable provisions of the Social Services Law, Rules of the State Board of Social Welfare and Regulations of the State Department of Social Services (see Appendix), and approved local policy. a. If the determination is that assistance shall be continued, prepares the memorandum, in triplicate. Forwards original copy of memorandum with case record to the appropriate Case Unit; forwards duplicate copy of the memorandum to Center Director; retains third copy for own file. bd. If the determination is that assistance shall be discon- tinued or suspended, prepares memorandum, in quintuplicate. Retains one copy for own file; forwards original copy of memorandum with case record to the appropriate Case Unit; forwards three copies to the Director's office where one copy shall be retained in file, and two copies forwarded to the Fair Hearings Section, Central Office, one for the Commissioner's file and one for the State Area Office. 8. On receipt of determination of the Review Officer, makes appropriate entry on Form W-708. Forwards case record and all material to the Caseworker for appropriate action and controls to insure prompt action. 9. Takes appropriate action to continue or discontinue assist- ance; prepares appropriate letter to client with a copy to his attorney or representative, if any, and one copy to be retained in case record; makes case entry detailing action taken; prepares required forms to carry out appropriate action in accordance with current procedure. (over) ee el ee inaeinegie Page 4 May 21, 1968 LEGAL BASIS FOR CLOSING CASE state Department Regulation 351.26 requires that after the review, the review- ing officer's decision shall include reference to applicable provisions of jaw, rules of the State Board of Social Welfare, regulations of the State Department of Social Services and approved local policy. the Social Services Law, Board of Rules and Department regulations give the Comissioner authority upon completion of an investigation to suspend, increase, decrease or revoke & grant in cases where such action is based on the element of need, as follows: SOCIAL SERVICES LAW section 134 - “Such person shall be visited. . . ., in order that assistance or care may be given only in such amount and as long as is necessary. . - . (all categories) section 214 (QAA) - ". . . -the amount and manner of giving assistance may ve changed or the assistance may be withdrawn if such official finds that the recipient's circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant such action. It shall be within the power of the social services official at any time to cancel and revoke assistance for cause, as he may deem proper,. - - " section 286(2) (AB) - "The amount and nature of the assistance and the manner of providing it shall be determined by the social services official with due regard to the conditions existing in each case and in accordance with the regulations of the Department." section 303, subdivision (2) (AD) - "The amount and nature of the aid and the manner of. providing it shall be determined by the social services officials with due regard to the conditions existing in the case in accordance with the provisions of this title, or other provisions of this chapter, the rules of the board and the regulations of the Department." section 350, subdivision 2 (ADC) - “allowances (a) shall not be granted for a period of longer than that prescribed by the rules of the board and regula- tions of the Department, subject to renewal from time to time. (bv) May be increased, decreased or revoked at any time." Section 365a (MA) - “The amount, nature and manner of providing medical assistance for needy persons shall be determined by the social services officials. . . .in accordance with the local medical plan, the provision of the title (11), the rules of the board and regulations of the Department.” BOARD RULE 82.1(a)(1) - "Public assistance and care shall be granted only so long, and in such form and amount, as is necessitated by the needs of the recipient in the light of his resources.” (All categories) PROCEDURE wy 21, 1968 Page 5 NO. 68-18 wy) STATE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS $1 22(c) - "When an agency verifies ineligibility or a change in degree of need, ction shall be taken immediately to reduce, increase, or discontinue the grant tor the next payment period possible under existing payment procedure." (All categories) for those closings where there is ineligibility for reasons other than need, in sddition to the foregoing, the following references to law, rule or regulation Closing Codes 40-47 Social Services Law 285 State Department Regulation 368.2(i) Social Services Law 302 State Department Regulation 368.2(j) ) ) ) ) Social Services Law 349 ) ) ) ) ) Board Rule 80.1 State Department Regulations ge 3 ADC and T-ADC "Policies Governing the Administration of Public Assistance", Section 32 48 and 49 Social Services Law 131 (4) State Department Regulations 351.3 and 369.2 (7) 50 Social Services Law 131 (4) State Department Regulations 251.3 and 368.2 53 Social Services Law 321, 360 State Department Regulation 352.8 "Policies Governing the Administration of Public Assistance", Chapter VI 54 Social Services Law l34a State Department Regulation 351.7 55 State Department Regulation 351.2 "Policies Governing the Administration of Public Assistance", Section 165 57 Social Services Law 131(5b), 350b State Department Regulations 351.3, 369.2(7) 58 State Department Regulation 351.1 teem 59 Social Services Law 352 State Department Regulation 369.1 (b) 9 Contact Legal Division 56 Where there is a continuing need, there is no legal basis for closing a case for misuse of funds. State Depart- ment Regulation 352.5 (n) (1) provides for duplication of a grant in whole or part when the original check or pro- ceeds were allegedly lost, stolen or diverted to other purposes, when the health and safety of the recipient would be threatened by a failure to replace. Considera- tion should be given to restriction of a grant, or trans- fer to some other form of assistance or care. penvees tee are DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Center: Address: NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND OR DISCONTINUE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Prepare in Triplicate) 4 Cese Muaber re LJ suspenn (CJ discontinue your qublic This is to advise you that this Department intends for the following reasens: assistance grant on ’ {you feel that your public assistance grant should not te suspended or disceatinued, you mey request crview of your record by o Review Officer on or before You way else which may establish your need for public essistence. You heve the | through an attorney or any representative of your choesing. submit eny statement or document right to submit this written materia ifyou wish o review, please mark an X in Box No. 1, below. If you do not wish o review, pleese mark an X in Box No. 2, below. If you fail to reply, we will assume that you agree with the ection the Depart- nent proposes to take. Box No.1: |_]| REQUEST A REVIEW Box No.2:[_] | DO NOT REQUEST A REVIEW Pleose return o copy of this letter in the enclosed self-addressed envelope and keep the other cppy of his letter for your records. {after this review, you are still dissotisfied with the decision given you, you may request a Fair Hearing, » writing or orally, by communicating with the State Department of Social Services at 270 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007, Telephone Number 488-6550. Unit Supervisor Dote Ceselood No. sede? (reverse) W AVISO DE INTENCION DE SUSPENDER O CANCELAR ASISTENCIA PUBLICA Caso Numero presente es para informarle que este Departamento intenta [_]susPeNDER (]cANCELAR su gnacion de asistencia publica a partir de , por las razones wientes: que su asignacion de Asistencia Publica no debe ser suspendida o concelada, Ud puede de su caso por un Funcionario Revisador, en o antes de claracion o documento que pueda demostror su necesidad sta declaracion escrita o documento Ud. cree Jicitor una revision ted puede presentor tombien cualquier de recibir asistencia publica. Usted tiene el derecho de presentar e troves de un Abogado o cualquier Apoderado que usted selecciones. ‘Ud, desea una revision, sirvase marcar con una X en lo casillo senalada con el numero Uno abajo. ino deseo dicha revision, sirvase marcar con uno X en la casilla mumero Dos. Si Ud. no contesta esto saynicocion, se presumira que Ud, esto de acuerdo con la decision que este Departamento se propone doptor. sill Numero 1: [] YO SOLICITO UNA REVISION — Casilla Numero 2: [[] YO NO SOLICITOUNA REVISION vase devolver uno copia de esta corta en el sobre adjunto y guarde lo otra copia para su archivo. nada, Ud. todavia no esto de acuerdo con la decision que se cia en Justicia (Fair Hearing), en e| 270 Broadwoy, New York, \, despues de la revision antes mencio vdopte, Ud. puede solicitor, verbalmente o por escrito, una Audien onynizandose con el Departamento de Servicios Sociales del Estado, H.Y, 10007, Telefono numero 488-6550. Fecho Caselood Numero Supervisor de Unidad — DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Canter Address W. MOTICE OF DECISION, AFTER REVIEW, TO CONTINUE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE r = After careful consideration of all the factors and documents you presented, we are in agreement that you are still eligible to receive public assistance. Pleose inform your Caseworker of any change in your circumstances that offects your need for assistance. Unit Supervisor Date Ceseloed Neo. AVISO AL CLIENTE DE DECISION PARA CONTINUAR RECIBIENDO ASISTENCIA Despues de cuidedose consideracionde todos los dotos y d ntedos por Ud., hemos llegedo « le conclusion de que Ud. continue siendo elegible pore recibir pa publice, Sirvese informer o su trabojodor de cuclquier cambio en los circunstencias que pueden efector su necesided pore recib asistencia publice. NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Prepare in Duplicate) Cese Number Our investigation shows thot effective immediately you are not eligible to receive for the following reasons: You may wish to review the pamphlet which was given to you at the time of your opplicotion. It explains the provisions under which this type of public assistance is gronted ond your rights with respect to review of this decision. If you are dissatisfied with this decision you may request a Fair Hearing, in writing or orally, by communicating with the State Department of Social Services, 270 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007, Telephone Number 488-6550. You will soon receive information concerning your eligibility for continued assistence under the Medical Assistance Program as provided by the New York State Medicaid Program. “Unit Supery is or Dote Ceseloed No. Form M-3h* (fece) Rev. $/13/68 —_ Form M-3h* (reverse) Rev. 5/13/68 AVISO DE CANCELACION DE ASISTENCIA PUBLICA Cese Numere Nuestro investigacion demuestra que con efecto inmediato Ud. no es elegible pore récibir por las siguientes razones: Usted puede revisor e! folleto que le fue dado a Ud. al momento de su solicitud. En’ el se explican las condiciones por les cuales se concede este tipo de asistencia publice, asi como sus derechos a lo apelacion de esta decision. Si Ud. no esta de acuerdo con este decision, Ud. puede soliciter por escrito o ver- belmente une Audiencia en Justicia (Fair Hearing), comunicandose con el Departamento de Servicios Sociales de! Estodo, 270 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007, Telefono numero 488-6550. Pronto recibira Ud. informacion concerniente o su elegibilided pare continuar reci- biendo asistencia bajo e! Programa de Asistencia Medica, tel como se focilite por el Pro- grama de Ayuda Medico (Medicaid) del Estado de Nueve York. Supervisor de Unidod Feche Ceseleed Numero DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Center: Address: NOTICE OF DECISION, AFTER REVIEW, TO DISCONTINUE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE = Alter coreful consideration by o Review Officer of all the factors end documents you presented, ithes been decided thet effective immediately you are not eligible to receive fer the following reasons: You mey wish to review the pamphlet which was given to you of the time of your applicetion. It upleins the provisions under which this type of public essistonce is grented end your rights with respect to review of this decision. if you ore dissotisfied with this decision you may request o Fair Heoring, in writing or orally, by communicating with the State Department of Social Services, 270 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007, Telephone Number 488-6550. You will soon receive information concerning your eligibility for continued assistance under the Medical Assistence Program as provided by the New York State Medicaid Progrem. Unit Supervisor Dete Ceseleed Ne. NOTICIA DE CANCELACION DE ASISTENCIA PUBLICA DESPUES DE LA REVISION ‘ Despues de cuidedese consideracion por un funcionerio revisedor de todos los detos y decumen- tes presentedos por Ud., se he decidide que con efecto inmediato Ud. no es elegible pore recibir __por las siguientes razones: Usted puede reviser el folleto que le fue dade o Ud. al momento de su solicitud. En el se ex- plicen las condiciones por las les se de este tipo de asistencia publica, asi come sus derechos @ la apelacion de esta decision. $i Ud. no esta de acuerdo con esta decision, Ud. puede soliciter por escrito o verbalmente une Avdiencia en Justicia (Fair Hearing), comunicandose con el Departamento de Servicios Secicles del Estodo, 270 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10007, Telefono numero 488-6550. Pronte recibire Ud. informacion concerniente a su elegibilidad para continuer recibiendo asisten- cie bejo el Progroma de Asistencia Medica, tal como se facilite por e| Programa de Ayuda Medica (Mediceid) del Estado de Nueva York. Supervisor de Unided 150a Notice of Motion of Defendants George K. Wyman et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutHERN District or New York [Same Tite] Sirs: Puiease Take Notice that upon the complaints in the consolidated actions, dated the 29th day of January, 1968 and the 29th day of February, 1968, the annexed affidavit of Joel H. Sachs, and accompanying exhibits, dated the 14th day of June, 1968, and defendants’ memorandum of law, dated the 14th day of June, 1968, the undersigned will move before a three-judge court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2281 et seq. at a Motion Term thereof, in Room 1505, United States Courthouse, Foley Square, City of New York on the 26th day of June, 1968 at 10:30 o’clock in the forenoon or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for an order pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure granting summary judgment to the de- fendants, Wyman and the New York State Board of Social Welfare upon the ground that the Rules and Regulations of the New York State Department of Social Services con- cerning the procedures to be followed when a welfare re- cipient’s public assistance is about to be terminated are constitutional on their face and fully afford the welfare - — 15la Notice of Motion of Defendants George K. Wyman et al. recipient due process of law and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: New York, New York June 14, 1968 Yours, etc., To: Martin Garbus, Esq. Harold Rothwax, Esq. Shyleur Barrack, Esq. Harold Rothwax, Esq. Louis J. Lefkowitz Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Defendants Wyman and the New York State Board of Social Welfare Cl AN 152a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs in Support of Foregoing Motion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SoutHERN District or New York [Same Tite] State of New York ) County of New York ) ss.: Joet H. Sacus, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am an Assistant Attorney General in the office of Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of the State of New York, attorney for defendants Wyman, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Jones, Chairman of the State Board of Social Welfare, Adams, Height, Kimmerer, Galbraith, Johannes, Hopkins, MeCon- ville, Hale, Hostein, Klingenstein, Berlinger, Jackson, Lopez and Bernstein, as members of the Board of Social Welfare. I am fully familiar with the facts and circum. stances surrounding this case. I make this affidavit in support of above-named defendants’ motion for summary judgment upon the ground that the provisions set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the New York State De- partment of Social Services concerning the procedures to be followed when a welfare recipient’s public assistance is about to be terminated are constitutional on their face and fully afford the welfare recipient due process of law. This action, commenced by attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, Mobilization For Youth and the New York Legal Aid Society is a ‘‘test case’’ challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the New York 153a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs Social Welfare Law and the official compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. It is one of a series of actions which have been commenced by these and related organizations throughout the United States at- tacking state welfare law provisions as to the procedures to be followed when a welfare recipient’s assistance is sus- pended or discontinued. At the time plaintiffs’ action was commenced, the de- fendants concede that the New York State Social Services Law did not give welfare recipients notification of their suspension or termination prior to such suspension or ter- mination, nor was a hearing authorized to be conducted prior to the date of discontinuance. (However, at that time, Rules 84.2 to 84.23 of the State Board of Social Welfare did and still do give any welfare recipient who has been suspended or discontinued from welfare the right to ask for a ‘‘fair hearing’’ to review his suspension or termina- tion.) Subsequent to the commencement of this action, the New York Department of Social Services, after examining plaintiffs’ complaint and supporting papers and after con- ferring with the Welfare Department in the State of Cali- fornia (where a similar action had recently been commenced in the federal courts), amended its regulations concerning the procedure to be followed when a welfare recipient’s as- sistance is about to be discontinued or suspended (as the Welfare Department in California had done previously). The new Regulation 351.26 providing for prior notice and an ‘“‘administrative hearing’ before termination of public assistance was originally promulgated on February 15, 1968 and was made effective as of March 1, 1968. Sub- sequent to this date, the New York City Department of So- cial Services, the largest welfare agency in the State of New York, informed this Court, as well as the New York State Department of Social Services, that the administra- 154a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs tion of the new Regulation within the City of New Yor was proving a difficult task due to the increased personnel, time and expense which would be involved in carrying out the provisions of the new Regulation. Thereafter, on April 25, 1968, at a meeting called at the request of the New York City Department of Social Sery. ices and the New York City Corporation Counsel’s office, attended by Joseph H. Loucheim, Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Felix Infausto, Esq., counsel to the New York State Department of Social Services, Philip Kahaner, Esq., Assistant Attor. ney General in charge of the Litigation Bureau, Joel H. Sachs, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Jack R. Goldberg, Commissioner of the City of New York Department of So cial Services, Samuel Felder, Esq., counsel to the New York City Department of Social Services, Norman Redlich, Esq, Executive Assistant Corporation Counsel, John Lofin, Esq., Assistant Corporation Counsel in charge of the Lit igation Bureau, and Luis M. Neco, Esq., Assistant Corpors- tion Counsel, and after discussions that extended over a six hour period, it was decided by all concerned that the New York State Department of Social Services Regulation 351.26, presently in effect, be repealed and a new Regulation 351.26 be adopted. On April 26, 1968, the annexed Reg- ulation 351.26 (Exhibit ‘‘A’’) was promulgated by the New York State Department of Social Services Commissioner George K. Wyman. This Regulation is now in effect. The newly adopted Regulation 351.26 of the Official Reg- ulations of the New York State Department of Social Serv- ices provides local agencies with two options. Under sub division (a), it is provided that before a recipient’s wel- fare payment is discontinued or suspended, the recipient is notified in advance of the proposed discontinuance or sus- pension along with the reasons therefor. The notice advises the recipient that if he so desires, he may appear for a re — 155a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs view of this determination, with the assistance of an attor- ney or other representative, at which time he will be af- forded an opportunity to present such written or oral evi- dence and the reasons that the recipient may have to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or suspended. Until a decision is made by the welfare official, who must occupy 4 position superior to that of the super- yisor who approved the proposed discontinuance or sus- pension, assistance to the welfare recipient is continued. Under subdivision (b), the same procedures prevail with the exception that, instead of appearing personally before the welfare official, the applicant whose assistance ig about to be terminated may present a written statement or other evidence to demonstrate why his grant should not be discontinued or suspended. In all other respects, the method of operation under subdivisions (a) and (b) are identical. Hence, plaintiffs’ claim that welfare payments may be suspended or discontinued without prior notifica- tion or hearing no longer has any merit. In addition, new Rules of the New York State Board of Social Welfare have recently been adopted (see Exhibit “B’’) which extend the ‘fair hearing’’ provisions to all welfare recipients whose assistance has already been dis- continued and streamline the fair hearing requirements. All welfare recipients are now notified of the right to a fair hearing. The hearing is held within ten working days from the date the request is received by the Department in cases involving discontinuance or suspension of assistance. The recipient is notified of his rights to be represented, by counsel, to testify, to present documentary evidence and to examine opposing witnesses and evidence. It is required that a decision be issued as promptly as feasible but not later than 12 working days from the close of the hearing. If the recipient is successful in presenting his case, the local welfare agency may be ordered to reimburse the recipient ————— ae 156a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs for any payments lost as well as to restore him to the wel. fare rolls. Taken together, the new Regulations and Rules gop. clusively demonstrate that plaintiffs’ claim as to the uncop. stitutionality of the procedures which the New York State Department of Welfare follows when a recipient’s aid js suspended or terminated, is utterly without merit. The current Regulations now provide that welfare recipients are to be notified before their assistance is discontinued and have a right to an ‘‘administrative hearing’’ before the termination date. In addition, the Rules which provide for a ‘‘fair hearing’’ by the state agency after the discop. tinuance of assistance by the ‘ocal agency thus give wel. fare recipients a review of the local agency’s determina. tion. Therefore, the adoption of the new Regulations has rendered plaintiffs’ original complaint moot and the re. newal of their objections to the current Regulations spe. cious. Mention should be made of a recent decision of a three- judge court convened in the Northern District of California in the case of Wheeler v. Montgomery (No. 40383). In that case, plaintiff attacked the welfare law of the State of California on the ground that there was no notice and op- portunity for a hearing prior to the termination of public assistance. In response to the institution of this action, the California Department of Social Welfare adopted new Regulations which provided an ‘‘informal conference” with the recipient before a final decision as to termination of public assistance was made. This new Regulation is in addition to the California ‘‘fair hearing’’ provisions which were already in effect and are similar to New York State’s ‘*fair hearing’’ provisions. Thereafter, as in the instant matter, plaintiff again at- tacked the ‘‘informal conference’’ on the grounds that a) the conference should not be before the local welfare of- 157a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs ficial since he can not be impartial and; b) and that con- frontation and cross-examination of witnesses were not required. The Court rejected these contentions and found that the ‘‘informal conference”’ prior to the termination of public assistance, taken together with the ‘‘fair hearing’ held after the termination of public assistance, did comply with the due process clause of the Constitution. A copy of the opinion of the three-judge court, dated April 17, 1968 is annexed hereto as Exhibit ‘‘C’’. Since the Rules and Reg- ulations of the New York State Department of Social Serv- ices go well beyond the California Regulations in that New York gives a seven day notice period prior to termination, whereas California gives only three days, in that under sub- division (a) a New York recipient may appear at the con- ference with an attorney or other representative, whereas in California only the recipient may attend the conference, in that under subdivision (b) a written record is made of the New York welfare recipient’s objections, whereas in California there is merely an informal oral conference and in that the review officer in New York is a supervisory wel- fare official, whereas in California he may only be a case worker, the New York Regulatiens should be upheld. Any contention that the official who is to preside at the “administrative hearing’’ lacks the neutrality and detach- ment required by the due process clause is without merit. Plaintiffs contend that a hearing officer employed by the locat welfare agency cannot be an impartial fact-finder. In numerous State administrative hearings such as ones conducted by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, the New York State Workmen’s Compensation Board and the New York State Labor Relations Board, the hearing officers who conduct such hearings are em- ployed by the administrative agency involved. In any event, plaintiffs’ objection to the alleged bias of the hear- ing officer in welfare cases is not a constitutional issue, but 158a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs like all allegations of bias on the part of a Court or hear. ing officer, are subject to review by the appellate courts. Plaintiffs likewise urge that the referee who presides at the hearing prior to termination be a state welfare of. ficial rather than a city welfare official. However, since each local welfare program is funded in large measure by the State, there is no basis to assume that a state referee will be any more impartial than a city official. On the other hand, a city referee who has first-hand knowledge of the welfare system in his vicinity and is able to confer directly with the officials of the local welfare agency involved, is in a better position to pass upon a recipient’s objections to proposed discontinuance than is a state referee. Further- more, if a recipient’s assistance is discontinued, the entire matter will eventually come before a state referee pursuant to the fair hearing procedures set forth in defendants’ Ex. hibit ‘*B’’. Similarly, plaintiffs’ contention that the absence of confrontation and cross-examination at the ‘‘administra- tive hearing’’ is unconstitutional, lacks merit. As will be more fully set forth in the defendants’ accompanying memorandum of law, the due process clause does net nee- essarily require confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses in all proceedings as long as there is a meaning- ful opportunity to be heard. Under the present Regula- tions (Exhibit ‘‘A’’) the recipient does have a meaningful opportunity to present his objections to the proposed dis- continuance of assistance. Furthermore, the fair hearing rules (Defendants’ Exhibit ‘‘B’’) specifically reserve to the welfare recipient the right of confrontation and cross-ex- amination. Hence, the Court should find, as did the three- judge court in Wheeler v. Montgomery, supra, that plain- tiffs’ claim as to lack of cross-examination and confronta- tion at the ‘‘administrative hearing’’ is not jurisdictionally fatal. 159a Affidavit of Joel H. Sachs In short, now that the State of New York and the City of New York have adopted procedures which give to the plaintiffs precisely the relief they have requested, plaintiffs are now attempting to dictate to the State of New York and the City of New York the type and manner of con- ducting hearings prior to the termination of public assist- ance. They also for the first time seem to be attacking the “fair hearing’’ itself although there is no mention of this in the complaint. As will be set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, it is well established tha‘ as long as the Rules and Regulations of the State of New York and the City of New York provide for adequate notice and op- portunity to be heard prior to the termination of public as- sistance, the requirements of the due process clause are satisfied. Therefore, plaintiffs’ challenge to the new reg- ulations must fail. Wuererore, defendants’ motion for summary judgment should be granted. Joel H. Sachs (Sworn to June 14, 1968.) Exhibit A Annexed to F oregoing Affidavit Newly Adopted Section 351.26 of Official Regulations of the New York State Department of Social Services (Same as exhibit annexed to affidavit of Joel Sachs printed herein at page 127a.) 160a Exhibit B Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit Resolution of The New York State Board of Social Welfare Dated January 16, 1968 (See Opposite gas”) RESOLUTION \ of . \ The liew York State Board of Social Welfare January 16, 196€ - WHEREAS, a complete review of the Department's fair hearing procedure has a been undertaken by the Board and the Department; and ? WHEREAS, a6 @ result of such review, proposed rules of the Board relating : to fair hearings were developed which im intended to adequately protect the rights of applicants for obs recipients of public assistance; and WHEAEAS, notice was given at the July meeting of the Board, in accordance with Article VIII of the by-laws, of intent to move, at the September meeting of the Board, amendment of Part e4 of the Rules of the Board, ’ add twenty-two proposed new sections thereto, subject to such . vevisions as might be recommended as a result of the public hearing or hearings to be held by the Rules Commi t tee and WHEREAS, public hearings relating to such proposed rules were held by the Rules Committee on July 21 and 22, 1967 in the City of New York and on August 9, 1967 in the City of Rochester; and WHEREAS, such proposed rules have been revised as deemed necessary and appropriate in consequence of such public hearings and of certian consideration thereof by the Rules Committee; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Rules Committee Of the Board reconmend that. such proposed rules as so revised be adopted by the Board; and WHEREAS, notice was given at the November meeting of the Board, in accordance with Article VIII of the by-laws of intent to move, at the December meeting of the Board, such resolution amending the Rules of the Board to accomplish such purpose; and -2- WHEREAS, the New York Public Welfare Association requested that action on - guch resolution be deferred; and ." MHEREAS, in response to the request of said New York Public Welfare Associ- aM ,. ation the Board postponed action on said resolution to the Jamary me meeting of the Board; therefore. . PURSUANT to the authority vested in the State Board of Social Welfare by Section 2 of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution and Sections 17 and 16 of the Social Services Law, it is RESOLVED, that the Official Rules of the State Board of Social Welfare, being Chapter I of Title 16, NYCRR, be and hereby are amended in the aaaeniay * respects, effective March 1, 1966, except was NO provision of these amendments shall apply to Fair Hearings or requests March 1, 1968. Part @4 is hereby amended by adding thereto twe nty-two new sections, to be 64.2 through 04.23 inclusive, to read as eee, sa : N ‘( See annexed ce therefor pending on. Shi nee ENE eT TE | ‘ 5 : a »i~- 4.2. Definitions. (a) Appellant. An applicant or recipient who requests a fair hearing shall be termed an appellant. . (b) Board. Board’means the State Board of Social Welfare. (c) Commissioner. Commissioner means the State Commissioner of Social Services. (¢) Department. Department means the State Department of Social they parties shall inform them: (a) Of the date and place of the hearing; (b) Of the appellant's rights with respect to transportation and other costs and expenditures; ’ -3-. (c) Of the name and address of the hearing officer who will conduct the hearing: F (d) Cf the issues which are to be the subject of the hearino: (e) Of the manner in which the hearing will be conducted; (f) Of the right of each party to be represented, to testify. to nroduce - witnesses. to present documentary evidence and to examine onposing witnesses and evidence: (a) That the time and place of the hearing are subject to change if in- “4.9. Examination documen fore he - Opnortunity shall be afforded .the appellant or his attorney, on five working days' written request. to ex- amine copies of documentary evidence in the possession of the social services official which the social services official -lans to introduce at the hearing. but such documentary evidence need not be produced more than five working days prior to the hearing. 84.10. Hearing Cfficer. The hearing shall be conducted by an impartial Hearing Officer. J . { 64.11. P $s ar Officer. The Hearine Officer ehall have all the powers conferred by law and reculations of the Department to require at- tendance of witnesses and the production of books and records, and to ad- minister oaths and to take testimony. 84.12. Nho may be present at hearinc. The apnellant. his renresentative (who' may be an attorney or other erson representine hin). counsel or other ree presentatives of the social services official, witnesses of both perties and any who may be called by the hearina officer, and representatives of the Department may be present at the hearing. together with such other persons as may be admitted by the Hearing Officer in his discretion with the consent of the appellant. 84.13. Conduct of hearing - Rights of narties. (a) The Hearing Cfficer shall preside. He shall make an openina statement describing the nature of the proceeding, the issues and the manner in which the hearing will be con- ducted. (b) Technical rules of evidence followed in # court of lew shall not apply, but evidence must be relevant and material. 4 (c) Each party has a richt to be renresented by counsel. or other b representative, to testify, to mroduce witnesses to testify, to offer docu- mentary evidence, to cross-examine opposing witnesses, to offer evidence in rebuttal and to examine any documentary evidence offered by the other party. - ede ; ' ae me ¢ | (d)" The hearing may be adjourned by the Hearing Officer for good cause on his own motion or at the request of either party. (e) A verbatim recy: sof the hearing shall be made. 84.14. Examination of record after hearing. The record of the hearing shall be confidential, but i> aay be ae by either party. 94.15. Decision after hearing. (a) The fair hearing decision shall be made and issued by the Commissioner on the basis of the hearing record. It shall be issued as promptly as feasible and not later than twelve working days from the close of.the hearing; but such time may be extended with the consent of the parties. The decision shall describe the issues, recite the relevant facts, the pertinent provisions of law, Board Rule, . tment Regulation and State approved local policy provisions, make appropriate findings, determine the issues, state the reasons for the ss determinations, and, when appropriate, direct specific action by the : social services official. ha: (b) A copy of the decision shall be sent to each of the parties. () ba.n6. Notification of right to judicial review. In the letter transmitting — the decision, clear reference shall be made to availability of judicial review. 84.17. Direction relative to similar cases. When a fair hearing decision indicates that the social services official has misapplied provisions of r law, Board Rule, Departmont Regulation, or such official's own State approved policy, the Commissioner's letter transmitting such decision to such official shall contain a direction to such official to review other cases with similar facts for conformity with the principles and findings in the decision. 84.18. Decision without hearing. (a) The appellant shall have the option to request that his appeal from a social services official's determination, action, or failure to act be decided by the Commissioner without a hearing. In such cases, opportunity shall be afforded each party to submit written evidence and to review and comment on the evidence submitted by the other party. ee -5- (b) If at any stage of an appeal from a social services official's - action or failure to act, it clearly appears to the Commissioner that the social services official's action or failure to act is contrary to law, Board Rule, Oepartment Regulation or the social services officiai's own State approved policy, he may issue a decision directing the social services official to perform specific actions for the benefit of the appellant. 4,19. Compliance with decision. When a decision of the Commissioner (whether made after or without a hearing) directs a social services official to perform specific actions, such official shall comply promptly with such directions and make a report thereof to the Department within thirty days after receipt of the decision. 94.20. Compliance with direction relative t milar cases. then a direction has been given to a social services official to correct misapplication of law, Board Rule, Department Regulation or such official's own State approved policy in all cases similar to the one in which a decision has been issued, such official shall report the actions he has taken to comply with such direction to the Department within thirty days after receipt of the direction. The social services official shall make such additional reports as the Department may require. 84.21. Need for revision of Board Rule and Department Requlation indicated 3 ls and fair hea + When, as a result of appeals and fair hearings, there are indications that provisions of Board Rule or Department Regulation or both may be inadequate, review of such prévisions shall be promptly initiated by the Department, which shall make appropriate periodic reports to the Board on the issues raised by hearings ahd the results thereof. -6e 84,22 Local procedure for consideration of comolaints. Nothing in these Rules shall be construed to restrict or limit the right of any social services official to establish and maintain a local, internal procedure for consider- ation and disposition of complaints by applicants for or recipients of public assistance or other benefits, provided that such procedure shall not be con- ducted or used 60 as to inhibit the exercise of any of the rights to a fair hearing granted under these Rules, 84.23. Application of Rules to Cases for which Department is Responsible. - These rules shall apply to cases for which the Department is responsible for ° furnishing public assistance and care pursuant to the provisions of section 138-a and subdivision 2 of section 365 of the Social Services Law. In such cases the reports required to be made to the Department by sections 84.19 and 84,20 of these rules shall be made to the Commissioner or any Commissioner designated by hin. ; 162a Exhibit C Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit Memorandum Opinion of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Mae Wheeler vy, John Montgomery, et al. (See Opposite ga3>) ORiGINAL FILED APR 19 1968 CLERK, U. S. DIST. COURT SAN FRANCISCO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAE WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similariy situated, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) } j vs. ! No. 48303 JOHN MONTGOMERY, et al., | Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING ACTLON This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The facts concerning the named plaintiff -- Mae Wheeler -- are essentially as follows: The county welfare agency received a phone call which informed the county that Mrs. Wheeler had received the proceeds of her deceased son's insurance policy and had transferred the money to her grand- son. The county determined that Mrs. Wheeler was therefore ineligible for continued welfare (Old Age Security £ 0.A.S_/) assistance and terminated her aid without affording her a hearing on the alleged facts prior to termination. On December 20, 1967, Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli, the single judge to whom the application for a temporary restraining order was Originally addressed, signed his memorandum opinion and entered various orders. He-found the action to ~ necessitate the convening of a three juage court and found a class action appropriate. The parties have submitted extensive briefs and exhibits and the matter was submitted to the three judges on April iz, 1968, following oral argument. With respect to the named plaintiff -- Mae Wheeler -- she has now been afforded a “fair hearing" and has been found | eligible for continued 0.A.S. assistance. Furthermore, the claim originally pressed by plaintiff -- that at least some ' hearing prior to the termination of O.A.S. was constitution=- . ally compelled -- has now been conceded by defendants. The _ State of California, subsequent to Judge Zirpoli's order of December 20, has adopted—new regulations which do provide for what plaintiff terms an “informal conference" with the recipient (whose aid the county is about to terminate) and the county agency which is about to make the determination Y that the recipient is no longer eligible for aid. Reg. 44-325.43 (effective April 1, 1968), as set forth in CALIFORNIA STATE DiPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE MANUAL, provides as follows: 44-325.43 Notification , .., - The recipient, the parent or other person respon- sible for the child in AFDC, shall be notified, in writing, immediately upon the initial decision being made to withhold a warrant beyond its usual delivery date for any reason other than death, and in no case less than three (3) mail delivery days prior to the usual delivery date of the warrant to the recipient. The county shall give such notice as it has reason to pelieve. will be effective includ- ing, if necessary, a home call by appropriate personnel. Form AECD 239, Notice of Action, or a substitute form, may be used for this purpose. Every notification shall include: -431 A statement setting forth the proposed action and the grounds therefor, together with what information, if any, is needed or action re- quired to reestaodlish eligibility or to deter- mine a correct grant. -437 Assurance that prompt investigation is being mace; that the withheld warrant will be + , -Z- Therefore, the only issue remaining before this court is that raised by the class action which contends that the newly adopted regulations are constitutionally inadequate to afford gue process at the pre-termination conference. The class contends that the regulations are insufficient in five respects: (1) the conference is with a county official of the agency which has already determined the question of eligibility rather than before an “impartial” referee; (2) the three day notice requirement is too short; (3) no transcript is required to be made or furnished and the decision is not specifically required to be made only on the evidence present at the conference; (4) the burden of proof is on the recipient to establish eligibility and not on the county to establish ineligibility, and (5) confrontation and cross-examination are not required. delivered as soon as psy ep eligibility to receive it; and that the evidence or other information which brought about the withhold- ing action will be freely discussed with the recipient, parent, or other person, if he so desires (see Section .43%4 below). -433 A statement of whether, if aid is withheld, the recipient will or will not continue to be certified for medical assistance during the month aid is withheld. 0434 A statement that the recipient, parent, or other person may have the Opportunity to meet with his caseworker, an eligibility worxer, or another responsible person in the county department, at a specified time, or during a given time period which shall not exceed three (3) working days, and the last day of which shail be at least one (1) day prior to the usual delivery date of the warrant, and at a place specifically designated in orcer to enable the recipient, parent, or other person: (a) To learn the nature and extent of the in- formation on which the withholding notice is giver inciudiang, but not limited to that a ; — The constitutionality of the “informal conference" must be determined in light of the fact that even if aid is terminated, the State of California must provide the recipient with the kind of hearing plaintiff 7 present such “fair hearing" is required to be given wanna 45 days and a decision rendered within the next 75 days. As of July 1, 1968, the hearing and decision will be required ‘to be made within 60 ma The court finds that the present California regulations (see note 1) do comport with the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The State of California having given Mae Wheeler, the named plaintiff, a fair hearing in which she has been found eligible for 0.A.S., and having adopted regulations which assure all within the class due process before termination, described if the notification pursuant to Section .431 above; (c) To discuss the entire matter in- formally for purposes of clarifica- tion and, ‘where possible, resolu- — tion, 2/ CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § § 10950-10965. dy CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE § 10952. 4/ CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §-10958. $/ HANDSOCOK OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION § 6200(j), “ as set forth in Handbook Transmittal No. 140 (attached to Defendants' Trial Brief as Exh. 8), provides as follows: 6200. Requirements for State Flans (j) Prompt, definitive, and final administrative action will! be taken within 60 cays from the date of the request for a fair hearing. The claimant will be notified of the deci- sion, in writing, in the name of the State agency ana, to the extent it is available to him, of his right to judicial review. ai) OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK) ss.: MARIAN DAVIDSON being duly sworn deposes and says: 1. That I reside at 125 East 4th Street in the City and State of New York. 2. I am the Assistant Director of the United welfare League located at 929 Columbus Avenue, New York City. 3. On June 10, 1968, Mrs. Negron, the inter- yenor, in the above-entitled action, sought our services in regard to the Welfare Department's termination of her assis- tance. 4. I contacted the Welfare Department in Mrs. Negron's behalf and requested to know why her case was ter- minated. An employee informed me that the reason was be- cause her husband was residing with her. 5. I asked the employee whether this was recorded in the case records. 6. He consulted the case records and stated to me that the reason in the record was that Mrs. Negron was living in Philadelphia. 7. When questioned by me the employee could not reconcile this inherent contradiction. 8. We informed the employee that Mrs. Negron was not in Philadelphia, but as of this date her case has not been reopened. 9. The worker informed me that no written notification of termination or intend to terminate was sent to Mrs. Negron, ; Deo DAVIDSON Sworn to before me this aN d June, 1968. (AN os tee Le NE A a a ee 202a Exhibit B Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Suspension of Public Assistance to Mr. and Mn. Mack Fuller Dated December 26, 1967 (See Opposite >) i THE CITY OF NEW YORK CEPARTMENT OF WELFARE w.c. Ras eCaee “oe’- G ~~ Adore ry; sew Fawve “a and fot ks a wy fl P*/ NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE aol J a Disa Aid Pita Mack Har lle s »OF Vdterder Ad. Ad BY er a TARO LLY ELLY . “ Your regular. a Lie _2acadilye gram vill be suspended begiming with the check of —////../ peomupe | ” 7 “&- iar” seaaiie Je prabe a diasele py > a fle » Coty fea Atle on tofit 6 fafroe 4 C recget got SPY &Y Avter Arp 1 hora Fee ween 2 i, a htig/ eperiadmerl ay aud Gf-ce ow 12/72 & Walaa Sa hiias Us steno rates 7 pee « yeu to: You may wish to review the pamphlet which was given to you et the time of your application. It explains the provisions under which this type of public assistance is granted ani your rights with respect te review of this decision. aes Lp Ld-J | TE Unit Supervisor Coscleed Ne. AVISO DE SUSPENSION DE AYUDA PUBLICA Sv esignecié lente he side suspendid de con el cheque que se indice y per los rezones que te expenen. Pere que le eyude puede reonuderse deberé cumplir Ud. con les instrucciones que equi se be den. El fellete que se le propercion’s cuondo hizo su aclicetud explice les condiciones que se requieren pore conceder este close de oywde » los derechos que » Ud. le es:sten er lo que respecte o! reexzemen de este decisidn. “we Oe \“ ° 4 204a Exhibit C Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Discontinuance of Public Assistance to Mr. and Mrs. Mack Fuller Dated December 28, 1967 (See Opposite gs) THE CITY OF NEW YORK SEPARTHENT OF WELFARE pool : Soe ner weed. Co ales sJCe “flee « ®@ cee SL sahlhye PY woe? NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF PU ASSISTANCE cr e 7 ny € Ar, Pr Bthe ~ 2 ae eee teens hee Fre TALC {eyysow LB t« a’ z Yy A Ce Cone Number L . . J % tor he follewing reesens: “es TA ACCA CMP rir fee Ay eee wo pilayminL Mtecaca,,' You may wish to review the pomphiet which wos given te you et the time of your epplice- nen, lt exploins the provisions under which this type of public essistance is granted and your nights with respect to review of this decision. Enclosed is o booklet describing the Medico! Assistance Program es provided by the New York Stote Mediceid Program. If you wish to apply for Medica! Assistance pleese fill owt the twe forms in the booklet, the ‘‘Applicetion for Medica! Assistance” (Form MA-11) and ‘‘Certificotien of Medico! Expenditures’’. Return the completed forms in the self-oddressed envelope. If you do not wish to apply for Medical Assistonce, you are required to return your Medico! Asustonce Identification Cord. !t is unlawful to use this Cord unless you ore receiving Medical Assistance. If you have any questions about the Medical Assistonce Program, you may contact the Bureau of Community Medical Services at 330 West 34th Street, New York City, telephone 594-3050. ms oe Se Ges EAAwiT Cc 206a Exhibit D Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Decision After Fair Hearing in Matter of Magdelena Mule; (See Opposite ja) In the Matter of the Appes! of 8 - a. AGEL BMA MUL ET 2 FAIR P tion by the Mew York City Depart-: eof Social Services (hereinafter called the : ner) ‘,. a feir heering wee held et 117 Liberty Street, New York City, on March 21, ya, before S. Gerelé Ducker, Referee, at which the eppellent, the appellent's jqreemative ond representatives of the local agency appeared. The eppeel is fe ,@eumiaation by the local egency relating te the suspension ef « grent ef Aid te pyestvat Ont Ldren. an eppertunity to be heard heving been eccerded all interested prtice ond the evidence heving been taken end due deliberation heving been hed, it is henety forms 1) The appellant's grent ef Aid to Dependent Cuildsen, was suspended tects Murch 16, 1 Ot. @ Subsoqentiy, the appellant's grent use reiasteted, effective the am im pe She ean od samen crm eh Lk at a Bie wee, ee ape ath er Oe tt te ne ao reenter epee ott chews the eames met thet it mee af tal dig its ection pending the ne In view of the full reinetstement of the eppellent in assistance effective wef the dete of ewepension, there is no issue to be reviewed at this tise. The gexy't preopecsl, to uithheld its intended discontinuance of escistenes until tp stem ef the appeal, is not en authorized procedure. Such procedure weuld be, fa tect, @ Fair Meering prier to discontinuence. There is nothing in the Social trvices Low, Rules of the State Board of Social Welfare, or the Regulations ef the tute Department of Social Services that authorizes, or makes previsien fer, e wise Fair Hearing. This is not to be confused with the agency's obligation te tend gn eppellant en opportunity for a review of a case prior te discontinuence econdance with the previsions of Section 351.26 of the Regulations and the wacy's ettention is specifically directed to this reguistion, which became effec- tive Merch 1, 1966, Tigdoh There ie no issue to be decided. a Oe 2082 Exhibit E Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Intent to Suspend Public Assistance in the Case of Mrs. Magdelena Mulei (See Opposite gg3>) K con SF na gt ow Moore 13S QUIT 1 297 Sh. NOTICE OF INTENT TO OR DISCONT ROVE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ips Magdalene, Mus LIT 04 oa ao Si) eery this in te edviee yougbet this D , U ds to O SUSPEND a me public muistence gront on: » for the following rgesens: yee WV ton “Xo + MAL 4 pms, liye feel thet your public essistonce grent sheuld not be vaview of your record by © Review Officer on or before wait ny stetement or document which mey esteblish your pt te wvbmit this written meteriel through en attorney or ony representetive of your choosing. jye with @ review, pleese mark en X in Box No. 1, below. If you de net wish e review, pleese merk wl «Box Ne. 2, below. If you feil to reply, we will ossume thet you egree with the ection the Dopert- ont proposes to teke. Bex No.1: _]!| REQUEST A REVIEW Box No.2:[_] | DO NOT REQUEST A REVIEW Pave return @ copy of this letter in the enclosed self-cddressed envelope end keep the other copy of ta letter for your records. (aher this review, you ere still dissetisfied with the decision given you, you may request o Fair Heoring, cvriting or orally, by communiceting with the State Department of Sociel Services et 270 Broedway, New tt, N.Y. 10007, Telephone Number 488-6550. QuLALA/ sf | * ed sed Conslecdpte. 210a Exhibit F Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Discontinuance of Public Assistance in the Case of Mrs. Maria Fuentes (See Opposite (>) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES YURKVIULF Wis fn! i athens 164 Eost Guin Str -. | Mew York 21, hi. Y. e. om of ‘YRS. MARIA Fuentes WFPR PRve ANC 16114 64 New Yor K+ A. Y. J Ow veatigerien chews thet effective immedietety yeu ere net eligible te receive Pubic As sistance eam enoM You have a large Sum of money five a Satis fact, LX planction. Yor amy wih te coview the let which wes given te yeu of the Have ef your applies te. 1 explains the provisions under which this type of public essistence is granted and you Apts with reapect te review of this decision. You may comtinve te vse your Medics! Assistance identificetion Card, when yeu aeod sxécel services, until the expiretion date noted on the cord. After thet time, end if yeu are in ~ seed of medica! services, it will be necessary for yeu te apply fer e new Medicel Asciormmes - dmiication Card ot the Boreas of Community Medicel Services, $30 West 3éch Street, New You City, N.% 10001. ; a 212a Exhibit G Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Decision After Fair Hearing in the Case of Maria Fuentes (See Opposite >>) A Pair Heering wes held at 117 Liberty Street, Hew York City om March 2, 1968, before Frederick Goléfeder, Referee, at which the eppellent, the gpellant's representative end representatives of the local agency appeared. te qpeel is from © determination by the local agency relating te the éiscen- timence of @ grant of Aid to Dependent Children. An opportunity to be heard having been accorded all interested parties ani the evidence heving been taken wi due deliberation havirg been had, it is hereby found: At the hearing, it was established that the agency hai not actually tiscontimed the grant of assistance to the appellant. Although the agency intents to Giscontimue essistance ani close the case, it is withholding ite ation pending the outcome of this appeal. In the meantins, the eppellest has been receiving her full assistance grant. In view of the fact that there has been no actual discontinuance of the grant of assistance, there is no issue to be reviewed at this time. ‘The wgency's proposal to withhold its intended discomtimance of assistance until the outcome of the appeal is not an authorized procedure. Such procedure would be, in effect, a Fair Hearing prior to discontimance. There is nothing in the focial Services Law, Rules of the State Board of Social Welfare, or the Mgulations of the State Department of Social Services that authorizes, or makes provision for, @ prior Fair Hearing. This is not to be confused with the agency's obligation to afford an appellant an opportunity for e review of @ case prier to discontinuance in accordance with the provisions of Section 351.26 of the Regulations and the agency's attention is specifically directed to this regulation, which became effective March 1, 1968. DECISION: There is mo issue to be decided. med: Albany, New York ) ‘ In the Matter of the Appeal of INA SIDOR DECISION : AFTER a determination by the New York FAIR Po Department of Social Services : HEARING ereinafter called the agency) eee A fair hearing was held at 270 Broadway, New York City on Deceinver 4, 1967, before Frederick Goldfeder, Referee at which the appellant, tne appcllends representative and representatives of the agency arpeared. The appeal is fron a determination by the agency relating to the suspension of a crenit of Aid to Dependent Children effective August 16, 1967 to October 16, 1967. An opportunity to be heard having been accorded all interested parties and the evidence having been taken and due deliberation having been hac, it is hereby found! 1) The appellant's application for public assistance mede April :2, 1967 was accepted May 4, 1967. At the time of acceptance of the application the appellant owned an automobile. The automobile was purchased by the appellant's mother, who is self-sustaining, and all operating expenses were paid for by the appellant's mother. The agency did not require thet the wtomobile be disposed of or that the agency be given a lien thereon. 2) Assistance was suspended August 16, 1967, because of “failure to comply with Department resource policy”. 3) At the hearing, the agency gave as its reason for suspencin- assistance that the appellant's mother should rather than paying automobile expenses, pay for items of genera: need. The agency also contendes that th. appellant owned shares of stock in an insurance company. 4) The appellant owned no stock and was wijline to authorize the agency to contact the attorney who represented hez in c mstrimontal ect. 2 te ebtade any infermstion the sceccer wettes, ene the ippacen. auc.cy (Oo ere @& * the agency's financial investigation. - 5} The autemobile was re-registered in the mother's name, anc “wreafter issistance was restored effective October 16, 1967. 6) The aprellant incurred debts for living expenses during the veiod of time in which assistance vas suspended. Cunership ef personal property does not, in and of itself, make one Le assistance. However when the equity in such propery td qa SIDOR eligible for public assistance unless the conditions set forth in section 352.8 of the Regulations of the State Department of Social Services, are found to exist. The agency does not contend that the appellant's equity in the automobile exceeded the amount established by it as a burial reserve, aad therefor ownership of the automobile did not make the appellant inelicible for assistance. Where the agreed-upon intent of a nonlegally responsible relative limits, the use of cash income the social services agency is required, by section 352.7 (b) (1) to abide by such restrictions. The appellant's gother is a non-legally responsible relative and the agency was required to abide by her imposed restriction of money i.e., payment for automobiie expense. There was accordingly, no basis for the suspension of the appellant's grant. DECISION: The agency's action in suspending assistance effective August 16, !9€7 wes in error and is hereby reversed. The agency is directed to issue a grant to meet verified debts incurzec by the appellant for items of need during the period of suspension and ' aceasta oye ae VAAx0 Cox l@ angela O+ La Compra pete & Lag’ F agersye tn tA LE¢ will receive $ AHS as a half-monthly grent from the De- partment of Welfare, provided you remain eligible for this assistamse. ee ee / | 7 NOTICE OF CHANGE IN GRANT _ If you have any questions about the grant, your Isvestigator will be gled te arrange an appointment to discuss the details of your waiget on which the amount is based. _ 4AM __—p-) Owte Coscleed Me." 4 937- 691 + O3-S Doduanhh & te texte Ge eo ema, UA. recibir’ le cantided que equi se indice per concepte de 1, mi coe clegible pere este clese de eyvde. E! combic on le haanigientte es oe re rerénies) qve se hece conster. Si tuviere elgune ep @ le osige » tu Invest:- goede hore con agrede une cite pore discutir los detelles del presupvesto en que se bese im. E NEE J 220a Exhibit K Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Discontinuance of Public Assistance to Mrs. F. Gomez (See Opposite ga3>) “~ Ln DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Sy nasen bree tt ysse eres : ab x ret re eS F Lom Ye E. peer >» a APG | —- ee . YY, OR, RE a maa ae bane Be Moe ont bucr aembarg ae You mey with te cA eC ae ne. It - the grevisions under which this yee, of public essistence is granted and you ngats with recgeet te review of this decision. You mey centinue te use your Medica! Assistance identificetion Cord, when you neod aedicel services, until the expirction dete neved-on the card. Alter that time, end it yew ere in wees: é , identification Card ot the Bureau of Cun Medicel Services, 330 West 34h ion ow York City, N.X 10001. oan iS . a Lis. 7 rviser ~ Coseleed Ne. Exhibit L Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Intent to Discontinue Public Assistance to Antonio Soto (See Opposite IQ”) DEP. IAL SERVIGES / nel “w 3O S/. ig NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND OR DISCONTINUE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Prepare in Triplicate) - yr @) S070 q Ly a GAD, . | ms toy KF 20d WR BMS 392 L ° : ves - achiev SUE POI ED sire Brosconrma — FAILURE FO AITEPO RE Malled [AT 70 CO. ww (eel het your public essistence gront should not te ills s) auiv dame 11, 1968 sett 3 } - i mibt Greg releteé crimes. Clie ba oes Ce oe 4 a Ve owe eotins. am eotive arug we: ‘or over 15 Yaya, fads 7 is it; Wh i iB iF ti Hal =ta adie Phe eet teed LSE: a I tee 3h (Se), 30m end State Bepartacst by kw _Te date, ha Grecrwi therefore my recemusndation thet the ease be elesed fur Sailure to Yesome invelved is a rebeh. egeneg. fate et this timp, end rebad aust « Sete had expressed a Gecire te attend information coucernias W. Aeto’s current iF ss ; bid: se i Wests ad “as ‘A ‘ — 230a Exhibit P Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Letter to Mrs. Mary Holmes Dated May 22, 1968 (See Opposite a>) 1] ab tie Gel P ~g Pages si see ; dp gait eghgtia gait Bane He a - spel bats ball, | io deitiaagl i oR Rae ate Nia Hv ied Bae HE Pg Waa ageeth aatt: CHP. Bien Heir tt ig By Heh dibs aban 3 Ai fy ait tisha site TA 4 i a ea te Oe Mai stad abe eS He 232a Exhibit Q Annexed to Foregoing Complaint Notice of Intent to Discontinue Public Assistance to Mary Holmes (See Opposite gg3>) ok OF “er SERVICES Address: tame 160 WBS 10 (0001 wy York , NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUSPEND or DISCONTINUE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (Prepare in Triplicate) maky Homes ” Te: " /oAand Sz. Cc bs ttm, “a Ths 1s to advise you thet W) TS a intends » Di suspeno 0 DISCONTINUE your publ:. satonce gront on , for the following teasons: Farkuké To 6: hs MA mages IN) 11GARA Ce Gfthae /SStk 0” H15/ Foe. gg Lipost) pnd Motto ft, Odd ty uclatio Was with teat sre ew of your record by a Review Officer on o- betore You mey aito woe teny statement or document which may establish you née public ass‘stence. “You hove the ngrt to submit this written moterial through an attorney of any representat:ve ot vour choosing {yew wd thot your public ass stance gront shouid notte “Wag you mey ‘eaves’ d you wth o review, please mark an X in Box No. |, be ow. If you do not = sho review, pleose merk an X in Box No. 2, below. If you fail to reply, we wii assume that you agree with the action the Deper:- sent proposes to take. Box No.1: |] REQUEST A REVIEW Box No.2 [_] | BO NOT REQUEST A REVIF™ Diense ‘eturn o copy of this letter in the enclosed seli-addressed enveiope and neep the othe 1. “! ha letrer for your records. «alter this review, you are st: AL dissatistied with the decision given you, you Moy reques! © b+ der rg eriting or orally, by communicoting with the State Deportment of Social Services at 270 Brocaw >. New fork, N.Y. 10007, Telephone Number 488-6550. [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0162%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.