Acevedo v. Turner
Belovic v. Doar
Casillas v. Daines
Doe v. Doar
Gibbons v. Riley
Gill v. Paige
Khrapunskiy v. Doar
Mayers v. New York Community Bancorp
M.K.B. v. Eggleston
Morel v. Giuliani
Ramirez v. Giuliani
Reynolds v. Giuliani
Rivera v. Bane
Shakhnes v. Eggleston
Sims v. Bank of America
Vega v. Eggleston
Walker v. Eggleston
Williston v. Eggleston
Yakubova v. Chertoff
Acevedo v. Turner U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Applicants for and recipients of family assistance are required to cooperate with the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and can be sanctioned for failure to do so. This class action challenged New York City's failure to tell applicants and recipients that such sanctions are temporary and can be lifted as soon as they cooperate, as well as the City's failure to lift sanctions promptly when sanctioned individuals are willing to cooperate. After lengthy negotiations, which resulted in the City’s use of a new and improved notice, the plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel reached a settlement, including attorneys’ fees, which was approved by the court on March 29, 2004. The court still has jurisdiction only over that part of the settlement that mandates that the notices of sanctions class members receive contain proper instructions so that the class member may be able to lift the sanctions. (RJ, ST)
Top
Belovic v. Doar U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action filed in April of 2007 challenging the Adult Protective Services’ systematic failure to provide Mandated services. The parties negotiated a settlement of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs, and a motion for class certification is currently pending. The parties are now exploring whether the defendants will promptly provide limited informal discovery with a view toward settlement. (JGS, ST, CH) (Co-counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP)
Top
Casillas v. Daines U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Action filed in May of 2007 challenging a New York State regulation prohibiting the use of Medicaid funds to pay for any sexual reassignment treatment on the grounds that the regulation violates the Medicaid Act, the Equal Protection Clauses of the New York State and US Constitutions, and the New York State Social Services Law. The plaintiffs have served the complaint and await an answer from the defendants. (JGS, CH, DB) (Co-counsel: Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe, LLP, Sylvia Rivera Law Project)
Top
Doe v. Doar Supreme Court, Monroe County. Class action challenging a state regulation that changed the manner in which the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”) calculates the public assistance budget of families in which some members are receiving public assistance and some are receiving Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion was converted to a motion for summary judgment and granted by Monroe County Supreme Court. The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed. At the Court’s direction, the parties submitted opposing remedial plans for retroactive benefits. The Supreme Court recently approved the defendants’ plan. The parties are now negotiating the possibility of an agreement to have no further appeals and have a final judgment entered so that relief can be afforded as soon as possible to the class members. (JGS, ST) (Co-counsel: GULP, Welfare Law Center, Legal Aid, Dewey Ballantine)
Top
Gibbons v. Riley U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. Class action against the United States Department of Education (“USED”) for violation of the terms of promissory notes of hundreds of thousands of student loan debtors in its efforts to collect on defaulted loans. USED was charging 42.84% of principal plus interest as a collection fee even for students who had signed promissory notes limiting the fee to 25%. USED changed its practice and initiated settlement talks as soon the case was filed, recognizing that they were totally in the wrong. We negotiated for four years and finally reached a settlement which requires USED to determine which debtors had signed ‘capped’ promissory notes and refund all overcharges. USED began their complicated computer process for identifying overcharged debtors in approximately March, 1999 and are not yet done. The fairness hearing on the settlement will not take place until they have run the computer program for all the guaranty agencies. In the meantime, we have received attorneys’ fees for past work and a sum for future work. (JGS)
Top
Gill v. Paige U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. Class action against the United States Department of Education (“USED”) on behalf of students of proprietary vocational schools who have sought and been denied discharges of their defaulted student loans. Such students sought discharges based on the fact that they did not have the “ability-to-benefit” (a-t-b) from the programs in which they were enrolled. After several years of discovery, we have now reached a settlement pursuant to which USED will send notices to class members giving them the chance to ask for new reviews of their requests for discharge; these reviews will be based on partially new criteria agreed on by the parties. Settlement should be approved very soon by the court. (JGS, ST, CH)
Top
Khrapunskiy v. Doar, App. Div. 1st Dept. Class action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought on behalf of elderly, blind, and/or disabled immigrants who lawfully reside in New York, and who have been provided public assistance in amounts below their state standard of need solely because of their immigration status, pursuant to SSL §§ 122.1(f) and 209.1(a)(iv). Social Services Law § 209(b) sets a higher standard of need for the disabled than the regular public assistance standard but the State excludes disabled persons who are barred from receiving SSI due to their immigration status and pays them at the lower rate. This case charged discrimination against immigrants based upon our previous victory in Aliessa, and the judge agreed, granting summary judgment and class certification. The State appealed and the Appellate Division granted our motion to vacate the automatic stay on behalf of class members facing evictions or utility shut-offs. (IM, ST) (Co-counsel: Legal Aid, GULP, Weil Gotshal)
Top
Mayers v. New York Community Bancorp U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. Class action challenging provision of CPLR that requires banks to restrain bank accounts when they receive a restraining notice from an attorney, even if the funds therein are purely directly deposited Social Security or SSI and therefore exempt from collection. Defendants are the Chief Judge, the Chief Administrative Judge, the Superintendent of Banks, several banks, and creditors’ attorneys. Defendants moved to dismiss; their motions were denied. Defendants then moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal; their motions were again denied. This case currently is in discovery. (JGS, CH, DB, JP) (Co-counsel: South Brooklyn Legal Services)
Top
M.K.B. v. Eggleston U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action challenging the wrongful denial of public benefits, including cash public assistance, food stamps and Medicaid, to certain categories of immigrants. The plaintiff class includes immigrant victims of domestic violence, individuals who are Permanently Residing under Color of Law (PRUCOL) and lawful permanent residents (greencard holders). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and a class-wide preliminary injunction in August of 2006, after which the parties were able to negotiate a settlement, which has now been approved by the Court. Pursuant to the settlement, the Court retains jurisdiction for four years (extendable to 7 years if plaintiffs can show systemic failure to comply with the terms of the agreement). During this period, plaintiffs will monitor compliance and advocate for individual members. (CH, JGS) (Co-counsel: Legal Aid and Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed)
Morel v. Giuliani U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action challenging the City’s failure to implement orders of aid-continuing and the State’s failure to issue them promptly. The judge certified the class and issued a class-wide preliminary injunction with which we are monitoring compliance. The parties are currently discussing settlement of the entire case. (RJ, ED) (Co-counsel: Legal Aid and Welfare Law Center)
Top
Ramirez v. Giuliani U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action challenging the City’s failure to provide interpreter services and translated documents to limited English speaking applicants for food stamps. We settled with the City in 2001 and with the State in 2002. The City settlement requires that food stamp materials generated by the City be translated into nine languages; that staffing of certain food stamp office and job centers be adjusted to include bilingual workers; that food stamp applicants be notified of their right to interpreter services; and that the City conduct periodic surveys to monitor its compliance. The State settlement requires that State-generated food stamp materials be translated into the same nine languages; and that the State conduct periodic consumer satisfaction surveys of New York City food stamp recipients. We are in the process of monitoring compliance with these settlements. Although some of the provisions of the City settlement have sunsetted, others remain in effect. (RJ, CPC)
Top
Reynolds v. Giuliani U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action challenging the City's failure to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements in processing applications for public assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid. Plaintiffs prevailed in 2005 after a 2001 trial. 2005 WL 342106. The Court later issued its final judgment, 2005 WL 3428213, defendants appealed. Later, the City withdrew its appeal. The State’s appeal was argued in the Second Circuit earlier this year, and the parties await a decision by the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, we are actively monitoring compliance and meeting with both defendants frequently to resolve issues of non-compliance. (RJ, CPC, JP) (Co-counsel: Legal Aid, Welfare Law Center)
Top
Rivera v. Bane Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. Class action filed in 1994 in which, following trial, the court ordered City defendant to make public assistance files available before fair hearings when timely requested by an appellant. The court denied class certification based on the City's promise to follow the court's judgment in all future requests for files, a promise which the City has not kept. In June 2003 the City moved to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case because the State regulation on which the Court based its ruling had been changed. The regulation formerly required the City to make the file available within three business days, provided it had been requested at least five days before the hearing. This rule was incorporated into the Judge's decision, but the City claimed that it had been superseded by the amended regulation which requires the City to make the file available “within a reasonable time before the hearing.” Plaintiffs opposed the City's motion, moved for intervention and re-moved for class certification based on the City's failure to keep its promise to produce all requested files in a timely fashion. After extensive settlement negotiations, a settlement was approved by the Court and we received monitoring reports and retained the ability to seek compliance for two more years. Plaintiffs then moved for extension of the stipulation based on defendant’s failures to provide all required monitoring information. We are now engaged in negotiations to resolve that motion. (JGS, RJ, ST)
Top
Shakhnes v. Eggleston: U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action filed in 2006 challenging the failure of New York City and State to provide timely and adequate notice of adverse actions concerning Medicaid funded home health care; to provide “aid continuing” when Medicaid funded home health care recipients timely request fair hearings; and to provide final administrative action within 90 days of a fair hearing request as required by law and regulations. After the case was filed in June 2006, the parties negotiated a settlement of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, in part by establishing a system to provide interim relief to proposed class members. A motion for class certification is pending, and discovery is proceeding. (JGS, DB, BT) (Co-counsel: Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP)
Top
Sims v. Bank of America: U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. Class action filed in 2006 challenging a New York law concerning the restraint of bank accounts by creditors’ attorneys. Plaintiffs allege that this law, as applied to accounts containing only electronically deposited exempt money such as Social Security or SSI benefits, violates the Due Process Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case was filed in November 2006 as a companion case to Mayers v. Roslyn Savings Bank. It was filed as a class action in order to avoid the possibility of the Mayers case becoming moot. The parties are close to an agreement on class certification, and discovery is proceeding in this and Mayers simultaneously. (JGS, CH. DB. JP)
Top
Vega v. Eggleston Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. We filed this class action in the spring of 2002 challenging the intake practices of Adult Protective Services. These practices included rejecting applicants whose need for assistance concerned housing, rejecting applicants who supposedly had someone to help protect them from harm. Settlement was approved by the Court and we are now monitoring compliance. (CPC, JGS, ST)
Top
Walker v. Eggleston U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. This class action challenges the City’s refusal to give Transitional Food Stamp Benefits (“TBA”) to people who cease to receive cash assistance because they are working in the New York City Parks Opportunity Program (“POP”). In states such as New York, which have chosen to operate a TBA program, the federal law makes these benefits available to anyone who ceases to receive cash assistance. New York City claims that because they keep the public assistance cases of POP participants open on the computer, these participants are ineligible for TBA. The Court denied the City’s and State’s motions to dismiss. 2005 WL 639584. The court then ordered plaintiffs to intervene the United States Department of Agriculture, which we did. The parties are now engaged in settlement negotiations (RJ, ST, EG)
Top
Williston v. Eggleston *_Williston v. Eggleston _*U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. Class action challenging City’s failure to timely provide food stamps to eligible food stamp applicants. Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, 379 F. Supp. 2d 561, granted plaintiffs' motion to intervene additional plaintiffs, 2005 WL 1669008, and denied defendants' motion for leave to appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss, 410 F. Supp. 2d 274. This case currently is in discovery. There is a class certification motion pending and settlement negotiations are now being pursued. (RJ, ED, EG) (Co-counsel: Welfare Law Center, Urban Justice Center).
Top
Yakubova v. Chertoff U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. This class action, filed in June of 2006, challenges the inordinate delays of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in adjudicating applications for naturalization, and inordinate delays by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in completing the criminal background checks necessary for USCIS to adjudicate all applications for naturalization. The defendants made a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied. This case currently is in discovery. (JGS, DB, JP)
Top |
