Opinion ID: 478361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Bank Match Program.

Text: 5 1. The circumstances under which benefits are terminated and the PA recipient's right to appeal. 6 Under federal law and applicable state and federal regulations a person who has access to a bank account with a balance in excess of $1,000 is ineligible for public assistance. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 602(a)(7)(B) (federal statute); 45 C.F.R. Sec. 233.20(a)(3)(i)(B) (federal regulation); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 352.23(b) (New York State regulation). Although PA recipients are required to disclose the value of all assets, including bank accounts, see 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 351.1(b)(2)(ii)(f), the city asserts that it learned of many individuals who were wrongfully receiving PA, because they had concealed the existence of disqualifying bank accounts. It was to deal with what the city has described as this particularly frustrating situation that the city instituted the bank match program. 7 Banks participating in the program are sent a computer tape containing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and dates of birth of PA recipients. Through their own computers the banks compare the names provided by the city with the names listed on their bank accounts. Each participating bank then sends to the city a list of PA recipients whose names are also listed on its bank accounts. Although the specific information provided varies from bank to bank, each one provides, at a minimum, the balance in the account bearing the name of each listed PA recipient. Some banks also report whether the account at issue is owned jointly or individually. 8 As soon as the city learns the name of a PA recipient on an account having a balance that exceeds $1,000, and before attempting to discuss the situation with the PA recipient, the city begins its procedure to terminate the recipient's PA benefits by having its own computer print out a notice of intent to terminate benefits (the notice of intent). Typically, the notice of intent is sent out approximately sixteen days prior to the actual termination of benefits. The content of this notice was changed during the course of this litigation and will be described in greater detail below. 9 A person receiving a notice of intent has the right to request a conference with a liaison and adjustment (L & A) worker at a neighborhood income maintenance center. This L & A worker is not the caseworker who handles the individual's day-to-day PA problems, but is a person specifically designated to handle, inter alia, all conferences arising out of the bank match program. The L & A worker is provided with a bank match packet that contains all the information which caused the city's computer to send out the notice of intent. If the recipient can show at the L & A conference his continuing eligibility for public assistance, for example, by showing that he does not have access to the account in question or that the account balance has fallen below $1,000, the L & A worker is authorized to stop the termination proceedings. 10 If unsuccessful at the conference with the L & A worker, the recipient may under state law request a review of the city's action at a state fair hearing. 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 358; see 45 C.F.R. Sec. 205.10(a)(1)(ii). According to the city, copies of the bank match packet and any additional evidence that the city intends to present at the fair hearing are sent to the recipient three to four days in advance of the fair hearing. Just as in the conference procedure, the burden at the fair hearing is on the recipient to present evidence to prove continuing eligibility for assistance. If the recipient presents such evidence, appropriate relief is granted; if not, the city's action is upheld and the recipient's benefits are terminated. Thus, once the notice of intent to terminate is generated by the city's computer, the burden is on the person whose benefits are in jeopardy to collect and present the evidence necessary to stop the proceedings. 11 2. The Notices of Intent. 12 Two forms of notice are at issue in this lawsuit: first, the notice sent to plaintiff Melba Henry, which was used by the city from the inception of the program in January 1984 through March 1985 (the old notice), and second, a notice changed to include additional, more specific information (the revised notice). 13 In both English and Spanish the old notice stated in pertinent part the following: 14 [The department of income maintenance has information] that you are in possession of assets which exceed the allowable amount for public assistance. 15 In addition, the notice described the procedure for obtaining a conference, provided the L & A worker's telephone number, and disclosed the individual's right to a fair hearing to contest the city's action. Although it stated that the recipient was in possession of assets which exceed the allowable amount (emphasis added), the old notice significantly made no reference either to the fact that the asset referred to was a bank account or to the $1,000 limitation. 16 The revised notice, changed after this lawsuit was instituted, substitutes for the term assets the phrase a bank account which contain[s] in excess of $1,000. It also cites the applicable state regulation, stating that the maximum amount of money that may be possessed while continuing to remain eligible for public assistance is $1,000. The revised notice, however, lacks specific information such as the name of the bank, the account number, or any information indicating whether the account is individually or jointly held. Even when the city actually possesses the more specific information, that information is, as a matter of administrative convenience, omitted from the revised notice of intent. 17