No. 73 - Melendez v. Wing

Zoraida Melendez, who suffers from clinical/symptomatic HIV, lives with her husband and three children in the Bronx and receives public assistance benefits that include an emergency shelter allowance for people with HIV-related illnesses. Her seven-year-old daughter has epilepsy and receives Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which had not been included in the calculation of Melendez's benefits prior to 2002. In that year, however, the New York City HIV/AIDS Services Administration (HASA) began including the daughter's SSI benefits as available household income in determining the amount of Melendez's shelter allowance, which resulted in a $480 reduction in her monthly assistance grant. HASA acted pursuant to 18 NYCRR 352.2(k), the regulation governing emergency shelter allowances, which requires that SSI benefits of family members be treated as available income.

Melendez challenged the reduction at a hearing before the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), arguing that inclusion of her daughter's SSI benefits as available income violated the "invisibility rule" in Social Services Law § 131-c(1). The rule provides that section 131-c, which otherwise
requires welfare officials to consider the incomes of other household members in determining a minor's application for public assistance, "shall not apply to individuals who are recipients of federal supplemental security income benefits...." OTDA rejected her claim, ruling that her daughter's SSI benefits were properly included in household income under 18 NYCRR 352.2(k). Melendez brought this article 78 proceeding to
annul the determination, citing a conflict between the regulation and Social Services Law § 131-c.

Supreme Court denied her petition, ruling there is no conflict between the statute and the regulation because the shelter allowance program "has a distinct statutory basis" in the State's 1993-94 Aid to Localities Budget. "[T]he unconditional language of the emergency shelter allowance program distinguishes it from other, general public assistance programs which separate SSI beneficiaries from other household members in calculating benefits," the court said.

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed, saying Social Services Law § 131-c "unambiguously states that the subdivision does not apply to individuals who are SSI recipients, and those benefits should not be included as available income for purposes of calculating the amount of public assistance." It also ruled the shelter allowance program is not a separate entitlement outside the definition of public assistance. "Since [OTDA's] regulation is in conflict with Social Services Law § 131-c, the provisions of the statute must prevail," the court said.

On remand, Supreme Court granted Melendez's petition in full, ordered recalculation of her shelter grant without consideration of her daughter's SSI benefits, and ordered the agencies to pay her $20,825 for benefits erroneously withheld through June 2006. OTDA argues Social Services Law § 131-c does not apply to the shelter allowance program because it is not "public assistance." It also contends that "nothing in § 131-c mandates exclusion of federal benefits when determining eligibility even for statutory public assistance benefits. Instead, § 131-c simply directs that officials shall include certain family members and their income and resources in an eligibility determination when a minor has applied for statutory public assistance."