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

Heading: The Termination of Melba Henry's Benefits.

Text: 18 Melba Henry, the mother of three children who, at the commencement of this litigation were aged two, three, and seven, was at all relevant times entirely dependent on PA benefits for herself and her family's subsistence. In August 1984 Henry received a notice of intent to terminate her benefits. The notice was the old notice--that she had assets in excess of the allowable amount--and was issued pursuant to the bank match program. The underlying information, supplied to the city by Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank, showed an account of $1,042 with Henry's name on it. 19 Henry testified that she was confused by the notice and didn't know what assets they were talking about. Instead of calling the number listed on the notice--that of the L & A worker assigned to handle bank match conferences--Henry called the person she usually called when problems arose concerning her PA benefits: her local caseworker. The caseworker was unfamiliar with the bank match program and was unable to provide Henry with any information concerning the disqualifying account. The caseworker did, however, advise Henry of her right to request a fair hearing. 20 Still unaware that the asset she was being charged with owning was a bank account with a balance exceeding $1,000, Henry requested a fair hearing. That hearing was held on September 10, 1984, and, not surprisingly, Henry, who appeared without counsel, presented neither documents nor witnesses in her defense. The city presented a copy of the computer printout showing her name on the Dollar Dry Dock Savings Bank account reflecting a balance of $1,042. In response, Henry acknowledged that the address and social security number on the account were hers, but she insisted that she did not own any bank account. Given this limited evidence, the New York State Department of Social Services in a decision after fair hearing dated October 4, 1984, understandably upheld the city's decision to terminate Henry's benefits. 21 As a result of the termination of Henry's benefits, Henry and her three children were left with no source of income for approximately six weeks. During that time, Henry borrowed from both friends and strangers in order to feed and clothe herself and her family. On many occasions they went hungry. 22 Not until the following month was Henry able to gather enough information to refute the allegations of the city which had taken her by surprise at the fair hearing. The disqualifying bank account was in fact a joint account bearing Henry's name and that of one Mary Collins, an elderly neighbor. Approximately three years earlier, Collins had asked Henry to add her name to the account so that if Collins, whose health was failing, should need cash but be unable to visit the bank, Henry could make any necessary withdrawal for her. Collins never intended to confer any right to the money in the account to Henry, but had added Henry's name as a joint owner purely as an accommodation to Collins. Since no need for Henry to make any withdrawal had actually occurred, and since Henry had never possessed the bankbook, it is not surprising that the district court credited Henry's explanation that she simply had forgotten that the account existed. 23 Henry reapplied for benefits on November 7, 1984; she also sought to reinstate her benefits through this lawsuit commenced by a complaint dated November 20, 1984. 24 On November 21, 1984, the district court issued a temporary restraining order restoring Henry's benefits; and a trial on the merits commenced on April 7, 1985. 25