Summary
In Perales and Arkansas the federal agency sought to impose interest only 30 days after the state had been notified that funds had been misspent, and before administrative appeals had been exhausted.
Summary of this case from Riles v. BennettOpinion
No. 427, Docket 84-6249.
Argued November 30, 1984.
Decided December 18, 1984.
Daniel D. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, Paul M. Glickman, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard A. Simpson, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Rudolph Giuliani, U.S. Atty., for the S.D.N.Y., Thomas D. Warren, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before LUMBARD, WINTER and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
The United States appeals from that portion of Judge Brieant's order, 598 F.Supp. 19, granting summary judgment and holding that the Department of Agriculture is not authorized to charge interest on debts arising out of the Food Stamp Program, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 to 7 U.S.C. § 2029 (1982), due it from the Department of Social Services of the State of New York.
We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.