|
(consolidated for disposition with Martin A. v. Giuliani)
FILE NO., COURT, AND DATE FILED
43236-85 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. City, Nov. 7, 1985)
CITATIONS
138 Misc. 2d 212 (Sup. Ct. 1987), aff'd, 153 A.D.2d 812 (1st Dept. 1989), appeal dismissed, 552 N.Y.S. 2d 110 (N.Y. 1990)
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW NO.
40,918
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Joshua Goldfein
The Legal Aid Society
199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038
(212) 577-3414
Fax: (212) 509-8753
jgoldfein(at)legal-aid.org
White & Case
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
(212) 819-8200
Fax: (212) 354-8113
ISSUES
Plaintiffs sought housing assistance to enable homeless families and those at risk of becoming homeless to avoid foster care placement of their children due to the families' lack of adequate shelter. This was one of three cases (the others were Martin A. v. Giuliani and Grant v. Cuomo) against the city and state of New York concerning the scope of New York statutes requiring protective and preventive services.
In 1979, New York enacted its Child Welfare Reform Act (CWRA) (1979 N.Y. Laws ch. 610 & 611), establishing as state policy that families should not be separated due to poverty alone. The CWRA mandated and provided fiscal incentives for local social service districts to offer preventive services to families. New York also enacted extensive protective services statutes requiring investigations and services into abuse and neglect allegations.
All three cases rely heavily on these New York statutes. The lawsuits also included claims based on federal child welfare statutes, the U.S. Constitution, and the New York Constitution.
HISTORY AND STATUS
This case was consolidated with Martin A. v. Giuliani because plaintiffs in both suits requested that defendants provide sufficient services to enable families to remain together. In April 1987, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, finding that the city's failure to provide preventive services to avert or shorten placement in voluntary foster care violates state and federal law. The court ordered the city to develop a comprehensive plan to satisfy its constitutional and statutory obligations.
In 1989, defendants appealed, claiming that the decision in Grant v. Cuomo, 130 A.D.2d 154, aff'd, 73 N.Y.2d 820, was dispositive. However, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court, ordering defendants to develop and implement individual case plans for the named plaintiffs that included housing services as preventive services under CWRA and striking down the state's 90-day emergency shelter limitation.
In 1994, plaintiffs began systemic enforcement proceedings. On November 30, 1994, plaintiffs filed a motion for systemic injunctive relief and defendants' filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. In 1996, leaving intact the individual plaintiffs' damages claims, the court dismissed the constitutional and certain other claims, but allowed plaintiffs to proceed with enforcement of the requirement for preventive services.
On January 17, 2003, the court referred this case and three others to a Special Masters Panel, which issued reports in 2003 and 2004. The Special Masters' tenure subsequently ended. The underlying rulings and orders remain in place. The city has developed a new reunification rent subsidy for some families, and monitoring continues with respect to ongoing reunification problems because of lack of adequate housing.
|
 | |
|
