Case Title: Boris Khrapunskiy v. Robert Doar, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-york

Court: New York Appellate Court

Date: 2009-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
- 1 -
=================================================================
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 52  
Boris Khrapunskiy, et al.,
            Respondents, 
        v. 
Robert Doar, as Commissioner of 
the New York State Office of 
Temporary and Disability 
Assistance, 
            Appellant.
Oren L. Zeve, for appellant.
Scott A. Rosenberg, for respondents.
City of New York, amicus curiae. 
JONES, J.:
The question before the Court is whether under the
State and Federal Constitutions, plaintiffs are entitled to
receive from the State the same level of benefits received by
aged, blind or disabled United States citizens from the federal
social security program.  We hold that plaintiffs are not
entitled to such benefits. 
I.
- 2 -
No. 52
- 2 -
In New York State, eligible needy aged, blind or
disabled individuals receive public assistance through
Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) from the federal
government, along with an additional state payment (ASP) provided
by the State.  The SSI program was established in 1972, effective
in 1974, by the United States Congress to provide aid to
individuals who because of their physical condition were unable
to support themselves (42 USC § 1381 et seq.).  The federal
government manages SSI/ASP payments and makes all administrative
and eligibility determinations (Social Services Law § 211).
Prior to 1974, New York State provided public
assistance under its own program entitled "Aid to the Aged,
Blind, and Disabled" (AABD) pursuant to former Social Services
Law, article 5, title 6.  As a result of the federal takeover of
this category of public assistance, the State discontinued the
AABD program and repealed the old law.  But in order to ensure
that the benefits provided would not be less than whatever
current benefits were being received after the transfer from
state to federal funding, Congress required the states to provide
a mandatory minimum supplement so that total aid was at least
equal to the pre-SSI levels.  New York therefore adopted a new
Title 6 of Article 5 of the Social Services Law, entitled
additional state payments (Social Services Law §§ 207-212), which
provided additional state payments to the aged, blind and
disabled who either received federal SSI payments (see 42 USC
- 3 -
No. 52
- 3 -
1381 et seq.), or whose income or resources, though above the
standard of need for the SSI program, was not sufficient under
Social Services Law § 209 (2).  At the time ASP was adopted,
eligibility was limited to aged, blind or disabled persons who
were residents of New York State and either United States
citizens or aliens who had not been determined by an appropriate
federal authority to be unlawfully residing in the United States.
In 1996, Congress enacted the PRWORA (title IV,
codified at 8 USC § 1601 et seq.), otherwise known as the
"Welfare Reform Act", which restricted alien eligibility for
federally funded public assistance benefits and authorized the
states to follow suit with their own programs.  Under PRWORA,
legal aliens who do not become United States citizens in seven
years lose their SSI and ASP benefits.  Thereafter, in 1998, New
York's Social Services Law § 209(1)(a)(iv) was amended to limit
eligibility for ASP to residents of the State who, if not
citizens of the United States, are aliens eligible for federal
benefits.  The purpose of the amendment was to conform state law
with federal law and to "make clear which aliens may be eligible
for state supplementation of the federal supplemental security
income program" (Senate Mem in Support of L 1998, ch 214, 1998
McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1667).  Therefore, when
Congress created a class of legal aliens who would become
ineligible for SSI/ASP benefits, the State discontinued
supplemental support for this class under Social Services Law §
- 4 -
No. 52
- 4 -
209 and instead, provided public assistance pursuant to Social
Services Law § 131-a (2), also known as the state-funded "safety
net assistance" (SNA) provision.  Under the "safety net" program,
eligible individuals would receive approximately $352 in the form
of a shelter allowance, a basic grant, a home energy allowance, a
supplemental home energy allowance and a fuel allowance if heat
is not included in rent (see Brownley v Doar, 12 NY3d 33, 39 at n
2 [2009]).
II.
Plaintiffs are aged, blind or disabled persons and
legal resident aliens of New York State who became ineligible for 
Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) payments and Additional
State Payments (ASP) because they did not become citizens in the
time frame mandated by the United States Congress in the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA) or were never eligible for SSI/ASP by virtue of the Act. 
Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant Commissioner
of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability
Assistance (OTDA) in 2004 and moved for class certification and a
preliminary injunction.  In an amended complaint filed in March
2005, plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to provide legal
immigrants with assistance consistent with the standard of need
in Social Services Law § 209 (2) for aged, blind or disabled
persons based solely on their immigration status, without regard
to their need, and in violation of Article XVII of the New York
- 5 -
No. 52
- 5 -
State Constitution, because SSI/ASP benefits totaled $761 per
month whereas SNA provided $352 in monthly support.  The amended
complaint also alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article I, § 11 of the New York State Constitution.  Plaintiffs
sought an order requiring OTDA to provide retroactive payments
and ongoing assistance in an amount consistent with Social
Services Law § 209 (2).  Supreme Court granted plaintiffs'
motions for certification, certifying a class defined as "All
persons identified to, or identifiable by, defendant as elderly,
blind and disabled persons lawfully residing in New York State
who have received, are receiving, or will receive assistance at
less than the standard of need set out in Social Services Law §
209(2), solely because of their immigration status", and summary
judgment.  The court held that OTDA's failure to provide
assistance to plaintiffs and the class at the standard of need
for the elderly, blind, and disabled, set out in Social Services
Law § 209 (2) violates Article XVII, § 1 of the State
Constitution and the right of plaintiffs and the class to the
equal protection of the laws under the Federal and State
Constitutions.   The court therefore permanently enjoined OTDA
from failing to provide assistance to plaintiffs and the class
consistent with the standard of need set out in Social Services
Law § 209.
The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme
- 6 -
No. 52
- 6 -
Court holding that plaintiffs were entitled to receive public
assistance under SNA at the level of citizens under SSI/ASP, as
set forth in Social Services Law § 209 (2).  Plaintiffs were
thereby entitled to state safety net assistance pursuant to
Social Services Law § 131-a (2) plus an additional payment by the
State sufficient to bring their benefits up to the SSI/ASP level. 
The Appellate Division granted defendant leave to appeal and
certified the following question to this Court:  "Was the order
of Supreme Court, as affirmed by this [c]ourt, properly made?" 
We answer this question in the negative.
III. 
OTDA argues that Article XVII of the New York State
Constitution does not require the State to provide SNA public
assistance at the Social Services Law § 209 (2) SSI/ASP standard
of need.  According to OTDA, the Constitution requires the state
to provide for the needy in a "manner and by such means, as the
legislature may from time to time determine" but does not mandate
a particular level of aid to any individual or class; and that
Social Services Law § 209 (2) sets a standard of need for
recipients of SSI but is not a general standard of need or
independent financial commitment by the Legislature to a class of
all aged, blind or disabled individuals who are ineligible for
federal social security benefits. 
OTDA further argues that equal protection does not
compel the State to create a public assistance program to provide
- 7 -
No. 52
- 7 -
benefits discontinued by operation of federal law.  OTDA contends
that plaintiffs are not being treated unequally by the State
because they have failed to identify any New York resident who
receives public assistance from the State at the Social Services
Law § 209 standard of need. 
Plaintiffs claim the State violates Article XVII of the
Constitution because it does not provide for SNA at the standard
of need set forth and defined in Social Services Law § 209 (2). 
Specifically, plaintiffs note that Article XVII of the State
Constitution requires the State to provide for the aid, care and
support of the needy, and argue that section 209 (2) establishes
a standard of need for all needy elderly and disabled lawful
residents of the state, whether or not they are citizens of the
United States.  As such, plaintiffs argue, the State by failing
to provide SNA benefits in an amount equal to the level set forth
in section 209 (2) violates Article XVII of the State
Constitution.
IV. 
At the outset, we note that ASP is not a stand-alone
program which sets a "standard of need" for all elderly, blind or
disabled individuals within the State.  ASP, a supplement to the
SSI program established by the federal government and Social
Services Law § 209 (2), merely sets forth "the standard of
monthly need for determining eligibility for and the amount of
additional state payments."  ASP represents a supplementary
- 8 -
No. 52
1 In 1976, Congress enacted a maintenance of effort rule
which required states to provide "supplementary payments" in an
amount no lower than their December 1976 levels (see 42 USC
1382g).
- 8 -
monetary amount which is included in the single check received by
SSI recipients from the federal Social Security Administration
(SSA) which administers SSI and ASP together.
While it is true that New York State did have a public
assistance program, AABD, which provided for the needy, aged,
blind, or disabled, it discontinued that separate program more
than thirty years ago when the federal government began providing
for this population through the SSI program in 1974.  The federal
government set the SSI benefit level; however, participant States
were required to supplement the federal contribution.1  In order
to fulfill the requirement of participation by the State, the
Legislature enacted ASP, turning control of its AABD program over
to the federal government and providing a small contribution to
SSI.  In order to avoid a reduction in benefits upon the transfer
to the SSI program, a mandatory minimum state supplement for
those who received AABD in December 1973 was set forth in Social
Services Law § 210 (see 42 USC 1382 [e]).  Failure to enact the
mandatory minimum supplement or the mandatory maintenance of
effort supplement results in a penalty to the State's federal
Medicaid funding (see 42 USC 1382g [a]).  With the foregoing as a
backdrop, we first consider the parties' claims under Article
XVII of the State Constitution.
  
- 9 -
No. 52
- 9 -
Article XVII requires the State to provide for the aid,
care and support of the needy.  This provision "was intended to
serve two functions:  first, it was felt to be necessary to
sustain from constitutional attack the social welfare programs  
. . . created by the State . . . and, second, it was intended as
an expression of the existence of a positive duty upon the State
to aid the needy" (Tucker v Toia, 43 NY2d 1, 7 [1977]).  
"The provision for assistance to the needy is
not a matter of legislative grace; rather, it
is specifically mandated by our Constitution. 
Section 1 of Article XVII of the State
Constitution declares:  'The aid, care and
support of the needy are public concerns and
shall be provided by the state and by such of
its subdivisions, and in such manner and by
such means, as the legislature may from time
to time determine'" 
(Tucker, 43 NY2d at 7).  However, "Article XVII of the State
Constitution, which requires the State to provide for the aid,
care and support of the needy, does not mandate that public
assistance be granted on an individual basis in every instance,
nor does it command that the State always meet in full measure
all the legitimate needs of each public assistance recipient"
Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437 (1977).  In Bernstein,
this Court upheld the replacement of individual grants for
shelter with a flat grant based upon fiscal constraints and the
need to optimize available public assistance moneys.  In our
recent decision Brownley v Doar (see 12 NY3d at 43-44), we
reiterated that it is the prerogative of the Legislature to
determine who is needy and to allocate public funds. 
- 10 -
No. 52
- 10 -
When the federal government enacted PRWORA the State
amended ASP to mirror SSI's new eligibility criteria; 
individuals who became ineligible for SSI because of this federal
change regarding citizenship, became eligible only for "safety
net" assistance.  On the other hand, the decisions by the courts
below require the State to set up an entirely new public
assistance program to pay the difference between SSI/ASP benefits
($761) and what SNA currently provides ($352).  As aptly pointed
out by OTDA, this would be an ever increasing amount over which
the Legislature has no control and would create a disparity in
the monthly aid received by other recipients of SNA.  We hold
that article XVII does not compel the state to assume the federal
government's obligation when an elderly or disabled person
becomes ineligible for continued SSI/ASP benefits.
Next, we examine the parties' equal protection claims.
In considering whether a State statute violates the Equal
Protection Clause, the Supreme Court applies different levels of
scrutiny to different types of classifications.  As a general
rule, the Supreme Court has strictly scrutinized State laws that
create alienage classifications when distributing or regulating
economic benefits.  Under strict scrutiny, a State statute will
withstand an equal protection challenge only when the State can
show that the law "furthers a compelling state interest by the
least restrictive means practically available."  (see Bernel v
Fainster, 467 US 227 [1984]).  However, the strict scrutiny test
- 11 -
No. 52
- 11 -
is to be invoked only where a challenged law can be said to
create classifications drawn along suspect lines.  In the instant
case, the alienage restriction embodied in Social Services Law §
209(1)(a)(iv) was mandated by federal law (PRWORA).  In
conforming the New York statute to mirror the federal law, the
State did not create a classification drawn along suspect lines. 
Because the State did not create a program of benefits which
excluded plaintiffs, levels of scrutiny are inapplicable and
there is no basis for an equal protection challenge.  
In support of their equal protection argument,
plaintiffs rely on Aliessa ex rel. Fayad v Novello (96 NY2d 418
[2001]) where this Court held that Social Services Law § 122
violated the equal protection clauses under the Federal and State
Constitutions by denying Medicaid benefits funded solely by the
State to plaintiffs based on their status as legal aliens.  In
Aliessa, we concluded that Social Services Law § 122 was subject
to -- and could not pass -- strict scrutiny because New York
enacted a state-based program which provided benefits to citizens
but denied the same benefits to aliens (96 NY2d at 436).  This
Court determined that the concept of need played no part in the
operation of the statute, which could not be justified on the
basis of a distinction between "qualified aliens," i.e., aliens
who are lawfully admitted for permanent residence (generally,
green card holders) or otherwise validly residing in the United
States, and those permanently residing in the United States under
- 12 -
No. 52
2 "Home relief" was the pre-cursor of the current "safety
net program" and in some instances provided a greater payment
amount than the payment received by SSI recipients.
- 12 -
color of law, i.e., aliens of whom the Immigration and
Naturalization Service is aware but has no plans to deport, on
the one hand, and citizens on the other.  
Plaintiffs also cite to Lee v Smith (43 NY2d 453
[1977]).  In Lee, a plaintiff on SSI received less in benefits
than persons who were not disabled and who received public
assistance under "home relief."  This Court held that Social
Services Law § 158 (a), which provided that a "person who is
receiving federal supplemental security income payments and/or
additional state payments shall not be eligible for home
relief,"2 was unconstitutional as applied to such recipients
because it violated the equal protection guarantees of the
Federal and State Constitutions.
Plaintiffs' and the dissent's reliance on Aliessa and
Lee is misplaced.  Aliessa and Lee are distinguishable from the
instant case because they both involved a state-funded program--
in Aliessa, a Medicaid program, and in Lee, a home relief
program.  In Lee, exclusion was based on the source of the
income, even though the income was below the standard for
receiving home relief.  In Aliessa, the federal Medicaid program
imposed a nationwide policy in which benefits were not available
to aliens.  However, federal law permitted the states to create a
state funded program.  New York enacted such a program which
- 13 -
No. 52
3 Under section 2 (19), public assistance refers to family
assistance, safety net assistance and veteran assistance.
- 13 -
provided benefits to citizens but excluded assistance to aliens. 
This Court found those exclusions impermissible.  
Here, contrary to the view of plaintiffs and the
dissenting judges, there is no equal protection violation.  There
is no longer a State program of "Aid to the Aged Blind and
Disabled."  The AABD program ceased in 1974 when SSI came into
being and no State program replaced it when public assistance to
that class of individuals was relinquished to the federal
government (see Social Services Law § 2 (19)).3  As there is no
State program of aid for this class, there are no State residents
receiving public assistance from New York at the level requested
by plaintiffs.  Simply put, the right to equal protection does
not require the State to create a new public assistance program,
in order to guarantee equal outcomes under wholly separate and
distinct public benefit programs.  Nor does it require the State
to remediate the effects of PRWORA.
In 1998, when the Legislature amended Social Services
Law § 209(1)(a)(iv), it was fully aware of the consequences.  The
Legislature is charged with providing for the needy; however, it
does so mindful of the State's resources.  When the State
eliminated its AABD program, it was with the understanding that
the federal government would be responsible for this class of
needy individuals and that the State would provide a smaller
- 14 -
No. 52
- 14 -
supplementary payment.  In short, enactment of a new public
assistance program requires legislative action. 
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should
be reversed, without costs, judgment granted declaring in
accordance with this Opinion and the certified question answered
in the negative.
1  Social Services Law § 122(1)(f) provides:
“An alien who is not ineligible for federal
supplemental security income benefits by
reason of alien status shall, if otherwise
eligible, be eligible to receive additional
state payments for aged, blind or disabled
persons under section two hundred nine of
this chapter.” 
Social Services Law § 209(1)(a)(iv) provides: 
“An individual shall be eligible to receive
additional state payments if he: . . . is a
- 1 -
Boris Khrapunskiy, et al. v Robert Doar
No. 52 
CIPARICK, J. (dissenting):
Because the majority today forecloses the availability
of benefits at an appropriate standard of need to some of our
indigent elderly, blind and disabled New Yorkers based solely on
their immigration status, and because our precedents in Matter of
Lee v Smith (43 NY2d 453 [1977]) and Matter of Aliessa v Novello
(96 NY2d 418 [2001]) compel a holding in favor of plaintiffs, I
respectfully dissent and would hold that Social Services Law §§
122 (1)(f) and 209 (1)(a)(iv) are unconstitutional and violative
of Article XVII of the New York State Constitution and Equal
Protection Clauses of both the United States and the New York
State Constitutions, and would affirm the order of the Appellate
Division.1 
- 2 -
No. 52
resident of the state and is either a citizen
of the United States or is not an alien who
is or would be ineligible for federal
supplemental security benefits solely by
reason of alien status.”   
- 2 -
All of the twenty named plaintiffs are indigent and
elderly, blind or disabled legal aliens and residents of New York
State.  Some are refugees who fled religious or political
persecution in their home countries.  Many of them are now
ineligible for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
benefits simply because they did not attain citizenship within a 
seven-year period as required by federal statute; in some cases
due to long delays in the processing of their applications as a
result of hardships caused by age and poor health or lack of
English-language skills.  Although plaintiffs may have once been
eligible for SSI and additional state payments (ASP) under Social
Services Law § 209, they became ineligible by virtue of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (PRWORA) in 1996 (USC § 1601 et. seq.) and conforming
state enactments.  
I
New York has a long history of providing for its poor
elderly, blind and disabled.  The New York State Constitution,
Article XVII, Section I, makes clear that aid for the needy is a
public concern.  It “imposes upon the State an affirmative duty
to aid the needy . . . [and] unequivocally prevents the
- 3 -
No. 52
- 3 -
Legislature from simply refusing to aid those whom it has
classified as needy” (see Tucker v Toia, 43 NY2d 1, 8 [1977];
Aliessa v Novello, 96 NY2d 418, 428 [2001]; Jiggetts v Grinker,
75 NY2d 411, 416 [1990])). 
In 1930, in enacting a state-wide system of old age
relief, the Legislature declared that providing for aged or
disabled persons in need is a “special matter of state concern
and a necessity in promoting the public health and welfare”
(Public Welfare Law, § 122, L 1930, ch 382).  In 1936, the
Legislature enacted a similar bill for the blind, replacing a
1922 law, and declared that assistance for the blind is a
“special matter of state concern” (Public Welfare Law § 112, L
1936, ch 693, § 7).  Nowhere in these provisions was any
restriction based upon alienage –- all legal residents of this
State who were elderly, blind or disabled received assistance for
decades under the State’s Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled
(AABD) program.       
In 1974, in enacting SSL § 209, the Legislature further
established its commitment to the special needs for all elderly,
blind and disabled in this State.  Since 1974, SSL  § 209.2
ensured New York’s standard of need for poor elderly, blind and
disabled.  It provides that the needs of those whose incomes are
below the standard receive additional state payments (ASP). 
Since 1974, New York supplemented the federal SSI payment with
ASP to meet its standard of need for plaintiffs’ class.  Those
- 4 -
No. 52
2  Effective January 1, 2009, an individual living alone in
New York State who is eligible for SSI receives $ 674 per month
in federal benefits and $ 87 in additional state payments.  As a
result of SSL § 209(1)(a)(iv) and 122(1)(f), an identically
situated individual in New York City not now eligible for SSI
receives $ 352 per month. 
- 4 -
whose income was too great to qualify for SSI but still fell
below the established standard of need likewise received ASP. 
All poor elderly, blind and disabled, including legal aliens like
plaintiffs, whose incomes were below the standard of need,
received ASP payments.  
In 1996, however, Congress rendered plaintiffs and
other legal immigrants ineligible for SSI benefits.  It also
ceased to administer ASP payments on behalf of these legal
residents merely because of their inability, for whatever reason,
to become naturalized.  In conforming its statutes to the new
federal proscriptions, the Legislature directly denied
plaintiffs’ class assistance at the same level as citizens or
qualifying aliens receiving aid pursuant to the “standard of
need,” as set by Social Services Law § 209.  Plaintiffs still
receive some public assistance, under the safety net assistance
program, administered pursuant to Social Services Law §
131(a)(2).  Those payments, however, are substantially less than
identically situated SSI and ASP recipients.2 
The State’s claim that the Legislature contemplated a
system of supplemental aid only for those eligible for SSI
benefits is incorrect.  Section 209 applies equally to those who
- 5 -
No. 52
- 5 -
are ineligible for SSI.  It is not tied to SSI benefits, nor is
there reason to suppose that the standard was artificially
inflated by reason of the availability of SSI.  It certainly is
not circumscribed by any immigration classification.  In using
the term of art “standard of monthly need,” the Legislature used
a term found throughout the Social Services Law that is strictly
need-based.  The concept of a standard of need dependent upon
alienage, instead of financial need, is incongruous to the plain
meaning of the term “standard of need.”  
Furthermore, when the Legislature enacted Sections 207-
209, it established the standard of need at a higher level than
SSI.  All New York residents were eligible for additional state
payments, including either “a citizen of the United States or . .
. an alien who has not been determined by an appropriate federal
authority to be unlawfully residing in the United States” (L 1998
ch 214, § 8).  In enacting this legislation, the Legislature
said: 
“The federal program provides a uniform
standard of need (and payment) nationwide;
unfortunately, that standard is far lower
than the standard of need for these same
persons under the state’s former AABD
program” (1974 NY Legisl Ann, 145, 147). 
The Legislature further reaffirmed its commitment
“to meeting the income needs of aged, blind
and disabled persons who are receiving basic
supplemental security income benefits or
whose income and resources, though above the
standard of need for the supplemental
security income program, is not sufficient to
meet those needs.  In order to maintain
- 6 -
No. 52
- 6 -
assistance for such persons at a level
consistent with their needs . . . there is
hereby established a state-wide program of
additional state payments for aged, blind and
disabled persons (SSL § 209).” 
In fact, Governor Wilson, in supporting the legislation, stated
that the federal SSI program “completely failed to meet the
special needs of this group.”  He added that Sections 207 and 209
“represent a commitment of State funding to mitigate the
omissions and inequities of the Federal program” (Governor’s
Approval Mem, Bill Jacket, L 1974, ch 1080, 1081). 
Considering the Legislature found SSI benefits to be
grossly inadequate, it certainly would not have envisioned
today’s payments to needy legal aliens at almost half that of the
level of SSI payments.  Nor would the Legislature have made clear
its intention to continue making additional state payments even
if the federal government did not continue administrating the SSI
program, if it really had intended to base its standard of need
on SSI eligibility alone (1974 State Legis Ann, 147).  There is
simply no evidence that the State viewed the availability of SSI
as extinguishing its underlying obligation to these specially
needy residents.  Thus, the State cannot relinquish its
obligation to provide legal residents assistance at the
statutorily created standard of need, and to do so now
impermissibly imports non-need-based restrictions on immigrant
eligibility into the State assistance program for the elderly,
blind and disabled. 
- 7 -
No. 52
- 7 -
The majority’s position is thus inconsistent with the
long tradition in New York of fully providing assistance to the
poor aged, blind and disabled, and is contrary to our controlling
case of Aliessa (see 96 NY2d at 429).  There, we held that SSL §
122 (1)(c) violated the “letter” and “spirit” of Article XVII of
the State’s Constitution by denying state-funded Medicaid
benefits on the basis of immigration status by “imposing on
plaintiffs an overly burdensome eligibility condition having
nothing to do with need and depriving them of an entire category
of otherwise available basic necessity benefits” (id. at 429). 
The Legislature had terminated Medicaid for non-citizens to
mirror the 1996 federal restrictions.  However, New York chose to
extend Medicaid benefits to more individuals than the federal
plan.  In doing so, New York could not provide less aid based
upon immigration status (id.).  
Contrary to the majority, our holding in Matter of Lee
v Smith (43 NY2d 453, 463 [1977]), indeed, lends support to
plaintiffs’ position here.  There, we stated:
“While the State’s adoption of the SSI
program means that the Federal Government
generally assumes the costs of administration
in providing for the aged, disabled and
blind, the State’s duty remains.  The
obligation cannot be avoided by irrevocably
assigning the aged, disabled and blind to the
Federal program without recourse to State
aid, when in many cases this means that they
must survive on lesser amounts than are
granted to other needy persons in the State”
(id.). 
The majority’s attempt to limit the holdings of these cases is
- 8 -
No. 52
- 8 -
most regrettable.  Here, New York, by adding Sections 122(1)(f)
to New York’s Social Services Law and amending SSL §
209(1)(a)(iv), has improperly imported federal restrictions on
alien eligibility for benefits, and in doing so has violated
Article XVII of our State Constitution. 
 II
 Turning to plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claims,
contrary to the majority, I believe that the Legislature, in
enacting these conforming statutes, acted impermissibly and in
violation of the Equal Protection Clauses under both our Federal
and State Constitutions.  We held in Aliessa that legal residents
are entitled to Equal Protection under the law (see 96 NY2d at
435-436).  The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall
“deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws” (US Cons 14th Amend, § 1).  The New York State
Constitution contains its own Equal Protection requirement (see
NY Const, art I, § 11).  We said, “[i]t is axiomatic that aliens
are ‘persons’ entitled to equal protection” (Aliessa at 430,
quoting Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 369 [1886] [“The
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the
protection of citizens”]; see also Mathews v Diaz, 426 US 67, 77
[1976]). 
 
In considering whether a state statute violates the
Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court applies different
levels of scrutiny to different types of classifications (see
- 9 -
No. 52
- 9 -
Clark v Jeter, 486 US 456, 461 [1986]).  As we noted in Aliessa,
the Supreme Court generally has strictly scrutinized state laws
that create classifications based upon immigration status when
distributing economic benefits (see e.g. Bernal v Fainter, 467 US
216, 227-228 [1984] [invalidating a Texas statute that required
citizenship for notaries public]; Nyquist v Mauclet, 432 US 1, 7-
12 [1977] [striking down a New York statute that restricted
eligibility for Regents college scholarships based on alienage]). 
Under the strict scrutiny standard, a State statute
will withstand an equal protection challenge only when the State
can show that the law “furthers a compelling state interest by
the least restrictive means practically available” (Bernal, 467
US at 227).  Recognizing that “discrete and insular minorities”
can be shut out of the political process, the United States
Supreme Court has applied a more searching inquiry to statutes
that draw classifications aimed at these groups (see United
States v Carolene Prods. Co., 304 US 144, 152-153 [1938]).  In
Graham v Richardson (403 US 365, 372 [1971]), the Court held
that, as a class, aliens are a “prime example of a discrete and
insular minority . . . for whom such heightened judicial
solicitude is appropriate.”  Lawful resident aliens benefit our
country in a great many ways as they contribute to our economy,
serve in the Armed Forces and pay taxes; however, they cannot
vote, which puts them in a weaker position (see Aliessa quoting
Hampton v Mow Sun Wong, 426 US 88, 107 n 30 [1976]).  
- 10 -
No. 52
- 10 -
Here, applying a strict scrutiny standard, as we did in
Aliessa, defendant does not contend that it has a compelling
interest for allowing residents to receive less assistance based
upon immigration status.  Defendant claims and the majority
agrees that “because the State did not create a program of
benefits which excluded plaintiffs, levels of scrutiny are
inapplicable and there is no basis for an equal protection
challenge” (maj op at 11), and it is not discriminating against
the plaintiffs’ class.  However, as the Appellate Division
explained below, the essential issue is whether in amending the
Social Services Law to exclude residents previously eligible for
ASP, it did so on permissible grounds.  Defendant has not
provided any “compelling government interest” in providing
plaintiffs’ class with a significantly lower level of assistance
based upon their status.  The current enactment that provides
assistance to citizens and certain conforming immigrants is
overly burdensome and without any justification, and prohibited
by the Equal Protection Clause.
       
In conclusion, the majority today has turned its back
on the history of New York’s commitment to protect its most
fragile and vulnerable populations, and insists that an
affirmance here would require the State to set up an entirely new
public assistance program requiring legislative action. 
Certainly, legislative action in this area would be welcomed as
provision of lower assistance levels to elderly, blind and
- 11 -
No. 52
- 11 -
disabled immigrants based solely upon alienage violates the Equal
Protection Clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions. 
Likewise, the provision of lower assistance levels to equally
needy classes of persons based on criteria unrelated to need
violates Article XVII of the New York State Constitution. 
Therefore, I would hold Social Services Law §§ 122(1)(f) and 209
(1)(a)(iv) to be unconstitutional.  
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Appellate
Division below. 
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   * 
Order reversed, without costs, judgment granted declaring in
accordance with the opinion herein and certified question
answered in the negative.  Opinion by Judge Jones.  Judges
Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.  Judge Ciparick dissents
and votes to affirm in an opinion in which Chief Judge Lippman 
concurs.
Decided May 12, 2009