5% ELL SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORM NEW YQRM COUNTY. I Nets). Index Number : / NON-FINAL DISPOSITION RICH, EMILY PART

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORM NEW YQRM COUNTY ndex Number : 4043/3 RCH, EMLY vs GOLDMAN, BETH Sequence Number : 00 ARTCLE 78 PART NDEX NO. MOTON DATE MOTON SEQ. NO. The followng papers, numbered to, were read on ths moton to/for Notce of MotonlOrder to Show Cause -Affdavts - Exhbts ' No(s). Answerng Affdavts - Exhbts Replyng Affdavts Nets). Nets). 5% ELL Dated:. CHECK ONE:... NON-FNAL DSPOSTON 2. WECK AS APPROPRATE:. GRANTED N PART 0 OTHER 3. CHECK F APPROPRATE:... 0 SETTLE ORDER 0 DO NOT POST 0 FDUCARY APPONTMENT 0 REFERENCE

2 EMLY RCH, Pettoner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Artcle 78 of the Cvl Practce Law and Rules, - aganst - BETH E. GOLDMAN, As Commssoner of New York Cty Department of Fnance, June 5, 4 60 Centre Street New York, New York 44 B E F O R E : HONORABLE ALCE SCHLESNGER, JSC A P P E RAN C E S: CARDOZO VET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVCES Attorneys for Pettoner 55 Ffth Avenue New York, New York 0003 BY: TOY GOLCK, ESQ. 22 NEW YORK CTY LAW DEPARTMENT OFFCE OF THE CORPORATON COUNSEL Attorneys for Respondent 00 Church. street

3 2 (Off-the-record dscusson held) THE COURT: Ths s a controversy between an ndvdual, Emly Rch, who had, n fact, been the recpent of SCRE benefts for a number of years. And when an ndvdual who she says was part of her household by the name of Martn Brmngham ded and hs contrbuton to the household was termnated because of hs death, Ms. Rch made an applcaton to contnue gettng SCRE benefts but to have the rent be further reduced because of the lack of ths addtonal money whch Mr. Brmngham was gvng to the household. On June 28, 3 she was -- t s not that date. 'm sorry. Here t s. t was on July 2, 3, excuse me, that the SCRE processng unt essentally dened the redetermnaton to recalculate t to make t lower, the beneft that she was gettng, They gave one reason for that. They sad, and quote: "Mr. Brmngham was lsted as a border on your applcaton. As per hs role to SCRE, you were hs caregver and he gave you $500 a month toward the rent. The total ncome of the border s not used for purposes of SCRE elgblty, and, therefore, cannot be used to process a redetermnaton. Only ncome from household merers can be =sed for redetermnaton snce ther total ncome s ncluded for SCRE elgblty pu'poses. Rachel C. Smone, CSR, RMR, CRR

4 ~ l 2 3 Now -- and correct me f am wrong, ether counsel -- but don't thnk that that s an accurate lsted as a border on any applcaton? 5 MS. GOLCK: No. 6 7 THE COURT: Mr. Ross, do you dsagree wth that? MR. ROSS: Mo, ycur Honor, he was not specfcally. THE COURT: So that's an ncorrect statement. We ~ begn the denal wth an ncorrect statement. Because, as we dscussed n oral argument, the word "border" for the frst tme came up n ths letter, questoned counsel for the department on where ths came f rom. Apparently they reled exclusvely on a letter sent earler when Mr. Brmngham was alve, of course, ndcatng that l7 Ms. Rch was hs caregver -- whch, parenthetcally, could also be one's partner but we wll go away from that parenthetcal remak -- and that he gave her $500 a month toward the rent. That seems to be exclusvely the ratonale for the denal. And because of that, Ms. Rch, who felt the denal was unfar, appealed. 22 And t should be noted that durng ths entre tme and through the appeal whch resulted n an August 5, _ 3 decson Ms. Rch was not represented by counsel. For the appesl there was, n my opnon, a -- Rachel C. Srnone, CSR, RMR, CRR

5 3 L when you just pck certan thngs -- MS. GOLCK: Cherry pckng? THE COURT: Thank you. 4 There was a cherry pckng of certan thngs and e an omsson of other thngs whch are mportant. And as sad to the lawyers, look at ths as an honest attempt by the appeals people to do the rght thng consstent wth E s the law. Just as an example of ths cherry pckng, the appeals people say: "Attached to your SCRE renewal applcaton dated October 2, 2 was a letter from Arden Brmngham' -- oh, 'm sorry, already addressed that. Forgve me. That's wthdrawn. Ths s the part: ltalso, you were lsted as an agent on the death certfcate dated June 9, 3 that you orgnally submtted to us n June 5 of 3." And that's true. Also true but left out s the fact that for whatever reasons, and the reasons could have been because t was the truth, Ms. Rch had the death certfcate changed to reflect what she beleved was the 9 correct state of affars whch was that Mr. Brmngham was her domestc partner. That was not mentoned at all, nor were thngs mentoned such as the fact that startng wth 06 when Ms. Rch fled an applcaton for SCRE benefts, Mr. Sm.r?gham was specfcally mentoned as her domestc partner, and that for the ensung years, 08, 0, that when the forn asked only the queston whether there had Rachel C. Smone, CSR, RMR, CRR

6 , been any changes n the household, Ms. Rch answered rrno'f whch mght mean to the average person that the stuaton nvolvng Mr. Brmngham remaned the same, the ncome was the same that he was gvng, and the SCRE benefts remaned the same based on all of that. What happened n 3 after Mr. Brmngham's death, n my opnon was a somewhat slanted nterpretaton E! of the evdence. Anythng whch could be nterpreted as gong aganst Ms. Rch such as the fact that there was a changed death certfcate as opposed to an orgnal death certfcate or -- and ths s what was reled upon n argument -- that n the 2 applcaton even though Ms. Rch ndcated there was no change, that applcaton actually asked for the name of the household member and the name wasn't put n n 2, but then between the June and the August date she dd add hs name. 7 Now, agan, she was wthout counsel. One could nterpret that as an attempt to fraudulently deceve the Department, or t could have been nterpreted as a way of clarfyng the stuaton and tellng the truth. So beleve that ths was not an openhanded, far and mpartal apprasal of the stuaton at all. Certanly there are at least many documents, f not mor=, whch suggest that the true relatonshp was that of partner as oppossd to border whch never came from Rachel C. Srnone, CSR, RMR, CRR

7 6 anywhere. 2 3 One of the thngs, for example, n the papers, and don't know specfcally f ths was ncluded n the appeals process, but that there was only one bedroom. t E c was a one-bedroom apartment wth one bed n t and that Ms. Rch and Mr. Brmngham shared the bed. That does say E s c somethng about "partner" as opposed to "border. lr n any event, because of what have found that ths was not a truly mpartal and far apprasal of the stuaton, and the converse of that would be that t was arbtrary and caprcous one, am remandng the matter back so that addtonal documents can be submtted f counsel chooses to do that, or addtonal argument can be made as to why the appeals bureau should take a second more serous more mpartal vew of the stuaton. Addtonally, may add that durng the papers, not at the appeals process when there was no lawyer, ths 8 argument was not made. But snce t s gong to be 9 remanded, f Ms. Golck on behalf of her clent wshes to make that argument, that's up to her. And that s that n the alternatve vew that he was a border, f that argument wants to be made, then Ms. Golck should have an opportunty to make that alternatve argument. That's t. So the matter s remanded for a second look wth the possblty of acceptng addtonal Rachel C. Srnone, CSR, MR, CRR

8 Proceedngs 7 documentaton and argument6 from the applcant. Court. Ths decson consttutes the order of * * * hs The &aregong s hereby certfed to be a true and accurate transcrpt of the proceedngs. n : A! Rachel C. Srnone Senor Court Reporter : 4 f Rachel C. Srnone, CSR, RMR, CRR