Opinion ID: 478361
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Final Judgment.

Text: 35 As the proceedings progressed, the district court made various findings of fact and drew certain legal conclusions; it rendered no formal written opinion. Final judgment was signed on June 18, 1985. 36 Addressing the individual claim, the district court held that defendants' termination of Henry's PA benefits after using the old notice was unlawful, because the old notice failed to contain information necessary for her to prepare a defense and therefore violated state and federal regulations as well as her due process rights. The final judgment directed the city to restore all PA benefits withheld pursuant to the October 4, 1984, decision on Henry's fair hearing. The court also found that Henry's suffering during the period in which she was wrongfully denied benefits entitled her to compensatory damages in the amount of $500. 37 As to the class claims, the district court certified a class, pursuant to rules 23(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, identifying the members of the class as all individuals who receive or will receive public assistance payments through the New York City Human Resources Administration or any successor entity (the main class) and, in addition, certified a sub-class of individuals consisting of all persons who, like Henry, had their benefits terminated after receiving the old notice. 38 The relief awarded the main class was both declaratory and injunctive. It concerned (1) the amount of information that the city must possess regarding any particular bank account before initiating termination procedures and (2) the information required to be placed on the notice of intent. 39 To fashion its relief the district court drew upon evidence presented at trial that described two types of termination procedures. Under what was referred to at trial as the Type A procedure, the city, without making any attempt to contact the individual whose benefits are about to be terminated, simply issued a notice of intent advising the individual of its proposed action. This, of course, placed on the PA recipient the burden of stopping the termination. Until the judgment below the city had used the Type A termination procedure in all bank match cases. 40 Under the Type B procedure, the individual whose eligibility was in question was invited to appear at the local income maintenance center for a face-to-face interview prior to initiation of the termination procedures. Thus, under the Type B procedure, before a notice of intent was issued an individual would be afforded an opportunity to clarify any ambiguity. 41 Under the judgment, the Type A procedure might be used in the bank match program only when the city is in the position to determine that the individual whose benefits are about to be terminated has a legal interest in the bank account that renders him/her ineligible for public assistance. Such a situation is deemed to exist when the city has information that the individual's name appears on (1) an individual account with a balance that exceeds $1,000; (2) a joint account reflecting a balance exceeding $2,000; or (3) any account (whether or not known to be held jointly or individually) reflecting a balance exceeding $2,000. 42 In all other cases, i.e., those in which the bank has not provided information indicating whether the account in question is held jointly or individually and the account balance is less than $2,000, the judgment below requires the city to use the Type B procedure, i.e., before sending out a notice of intent, the city must invite the individual to appear at a local income maintenance center to provide information regarding the ownership of the bank account. 43 As to the adequacy of the revised notice, the district court found the revised notice to be a vast improvement over the old notice, but held that in order to satisfy statutory and constitutional requirements it must be further revised to include (1) a statement that upon request the city will provide to the class member the number of the disqualifying bank account, the bank branch at which the account is located, the account balance, and, if available, the full title of the bank account, and (2) a statement that unless proven otherwise, a pro rata share of a jointly held bank account is presumed to be an available resource for public assistance eligibility. 44 The relief granted to the sub-class required the city to send all members a notice stating that the recipient's benefits may have been wrongfully terminated, that certain joint, trust and custodial bank accounts are treated differently than individual bank accounts for purposes of public assistance eligibility, and that the recipients should contact their local income maintenance centers to obtain a review of the decisions which had terminated their benefits. The judgment also required the defendants to restore benefits to any sub-class member found upon the review to have been erroneously terminated. 45 Finally, the district court determined that Henry was a prevailing plaintiff within the meaning of the civil rights laws and, accordingly, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, awarded her costs, disbursements, and a reasonable attorneys' fee. 46 On appeal, defendants argue principally that the district court went too far in ruling how the city must administer its bank match program; they challenge, however, in buckshot fashion, each ruling of the court below on both the individual and class claims, as well as the award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's cross-appeal concerns only the notice; she argues that the court should have required the city to place even more information on the notice of intent. Contending that her expert established unequivocally the feasibility of her requests, plaintiff asks specifically that the identity of the bank account at issue be placed on the notice instead of merely including a statement that the person can obtain that information upon request. 47 In short, defendants argue that the district court went too far, while plaintiff argues that it did not go far enough.