Case ID: ny-2d_38/html/0785-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Susan Barton, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Clint Young, Her Minor Ward, and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v Abe Lavine, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, and John Fahey, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the County of Albany, Respondent.
    Argued November 19, 1975;
    decided December 22, 1975
    
      
      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 NY2d 357, 363; Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v Monaghan, 9 NY2d 293, 304; Meltzer v Koenigsberg, 302 NY 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 NYCRR 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.