Hyperlawhypertext legal database De Jonge v. Blum 55 N.Y.2d 1030

← Cases

De Jonge v. Blum

55 N.Y.2d 1030 Court N.Y. Decision date 1982-02-25 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1030
In the Matter of Patricia De Jonge et al., Respondents, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Appellants. In the Matter of Maria Justiniano, Respondent, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant, et al., Respondent. In the Matter of Charlene Chatterton, Respondent, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent, and W. Burton Richardson, as Commissioner of the Monroe County Department of Social Services, Appellant.
Decided February 25, 1982
p. 1032
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Dale E. Skivington and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services.
Milo I. Tomanovich, James A. Robinson and Douglas Reynolds for W. Burton Richardson, as Commissioner of the Monroe County Department of Social Services.
Bryan Hethérington for Patricia De Jonge and others, respondeiits.
Rene H. Reixach for Charlene Chatterton, respondent.

opinion of the court

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The allowance for an unborn child may not be prórated by counting the expectant mother as a member of the statutory household when in fact she has no unmet needs (Snowberger v Toia, 46 NY2d 803 ). Nor may the commissioner urge that it is reasonable to treat an unborn child differently from other needy persons in view of the fact that the commissioner’s own regulations expressly provide that an unborn child shall be considered as a living child for the purpose of the basic allowance (18 NYCRR 369.2 [a] [1] [i]; also cf. Matter of Rankin v Lavine, 41 NY2d 911 ). That is not to say that the commissioner could not reasonably have adopted a different regulation, nor do we pass upon the effect or validity of the recent amendment to the Social Services Law (L 1981, ch 1053, § 3, now Social Services Law, § 131-a, subd 6, par [e]).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, FuchsbeRg and Meyer concur.

In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited