From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Barton v. Lavine, Fahey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 22, 1975
38 N.Y.2d 785 (N.Y. 1975)

Opinion

Argued November 19, 1975

Decided December 22, 1975

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, HAROLD J. HUGHES, J.

Wade Eaton and Rene H. Reixach for appellant-respondent.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Alan W. Rubenstein and Jean M. Coon of counsel), for respondent-appellant. Robert P. Roche, County Attorney (Philip R. Murray and Joseph F. Kehoe of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The amendment to the Social Security Act in issue here (Public Law 92-603; 86 US Stat 1462, 1492), is plainly effective as of January 1, 1973. It would have been appropriate to resort to legislative history for clarification were the effective date ambiguous upon the face of the statute. "January 1, 1973" could scarcely be more unambiguous. We decline the invitation to sit as a committee on revision. (Cf. Matter Taylor v Sise, 33 N.Y.2d 357, 363; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v Monaghan, 9 N.Y.2d 293, 304; Meltzer v Koenigsberg, 302 N.Y. 523, 525.)

If we conclude that "1973" means precisely what it says, in the amendment, then appellant clearly was denied benefits to which she was entitled from August of 1973, when she and her nephew were made subject to the Table for Cooperative Budgeting (18 N.Y.CRR 352.2 [e] [1]), until such time as the table ceased to be applied to her by virtue of a reorganization of aid programs by the Federal and State governments. The fact that appellant has already received the benefits she sues for does not render her case moot; she obtained these benefits under the terms of a stay pending this litigation and, as Special Term noted below, she has a right to a determination that she is entitled to keep those payments. The legal issue she raises is unchanged.

We do not find a class action appropriate in these circumstances.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur; Judge COOKE taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Barton v. Lavine, Fahey

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 22, 1975
38 N.Y.2d 785 (N.Y. 1975)
Case details for

Matter of Barton v. Lavine, Fahey

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SUSAN BARTON, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of CLINT…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 22, 1975

Citations

38 N.Y.2d 785 (N.Y. 1975)
381 N.Y.S.2d 867
345 N.E.2d 339

Citing Cases

Matter of Leone v. Blum

" In our view, this distinction regarding self-maintaining persons is just as valid for other nonrecipients,…

Firefighters Assn v. Beekman

I decline the invitation to sit as a member of a committee on revision. (Matter of Barton v Lavine, 38 N.Y.2d…