Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Application of Henroit AUGUSTE, Petitioner–Respondent, For a Judgment, etc., v. Brian J. WING, etc., et. al., Respondents–Appellants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about July 1, 1996, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, directed respondents to restore petitioner's public assistance benefits at their pretermination level for the period August 1986 to April 22, 1992 less any cash benefits received during that period, and awarded petitioner attorneys' fees, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of denying petitioner attorneys' fees, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Respondent State agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious insofar as it required petitioner to once again prove the extent of his need for the period of time that benefits were concededly wrongfully withheld, instead of simply requiring the City agency to pay those benefits at their pretermination level (see, Matter of Smith v. Lavine, 45 A.D.2d 712, 356 N.Y.S.2d 95). It would also be arbitrary and capricious to deny petitioner retroactive payment of benefits for any period of time he resided in a homeless shelter prior to the promulgation of the regulation providing for benefits to shelter residents, since the wrongful termination of petitioner's benefits contributed to his destitution and consequent need to reside in shelters. However, petitioner is not entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Although he prevailed on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for public assistance benefits wrongfully terminated by the City Agency without notice, respondent State agency's decision was not based on an official policy or practice (cf., Matter of Vollmer v. Dowling, 227 A.D.2d 349, 643 N.Y.S.2d 71). We have considered respondents' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 20, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)