Thousands Receive Payment From Class Action Settlement With NYC Agency
The litigation was brought after thousands of New York City residents received notices over an eight-year period stating that their public assistance benefits were either planned to be reduced or taken away based on their alleged failure to comply with work requirements.
July 22, 2019 at 04:46 PM
5 minute read
Thousands of New York City families received an average of $425 in public assistance after city and state officials settled a class action lawsuit that alleged those benefits were wrongfully reduced or stopped at points during an eight-year period, attorneys on the case said Monday.
That relief is ongoing; the settlement reached in the litigation provides a formula for class members who were affected at the time to receive benefits retroactively.
The families involved in the suit were represented by attorneys from the Legal Aid and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, who brought the litigation nearly 10 years ago against the New York City Human Resources Administration and the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.
The litigation was brought after thousands of New York City residents received notices over an eight-year period stating that their public assistance benefits were either planned to be reduced or taken away based on their alleged failure to comply with work requirements. Those notices were sent between July 2007 and the end of 2015.
But the attorneys who worked on the case alleged that those notices didn't comply with a change in state law enacted by the Legislature in 2006.
The process of reducing or terminating someone's benefits involves two separate notices. The first informs an individual that they could be sanctioned unless they have a good excuse for noncompliance. The second is sent when the sanction is actually set to be imposed.
After the first notice is sent, individuals have a chance to show they either had good cause for not complying with the requirements, or did not do so willfully. That's done through an administrative hearing.
The Legislature changed the law in 2006 to help individuals prepare for those hearings. The new statute required that the first notice be in plain language, give examples of what would be considered good cause for noncompliance, and say what documents could be used at a hearing to support someone's argument.
The second notice was also required to say, clearly, why someone was being sanctioned and how the violation was found to be either willful or without good cause.
The lawsuit alleged that the city hadn't made those changes to the notices, which put beneficiaries at a disadvantage. The challenge eventually grew into a class action lawsuit, which ended in the settlement.
More than 30,000 members of the class received one-time payments totaling $13.1 million last month, according to Legal Aid.
“Legal Aid represented scores of clients who could have avoided sanctions had they been adequately informed that their inability to comply with employment requirements would be excused,” said Les Helfman, an attorney on the case from Legal Aid. “This settlement provides compensation for the neediest of these clients.”
Noncompliance can mean something as simple as missing one work activity appointment. The notices targeted by the lawsuit were sent after a violation of the city's employment requirements. If someone missed an appointment because their child fell ill, for example, they could have been sanctioned if they didn't know they had an opportunity to say as much.
The litigation has spanned nearly a decade, mostly because of extensive motion practice, Helfman said. They had to move for class certification, for example, and at one point the state moved to pause the case while another related lawsuit was litigated.
They started to make more progress after the Legislature amended the law, again, in 2015 to change the notice requirements. Rather than being required to impose sanctions on someone out of compliance, the law gives more discretion for those individuals to re-engage with the city agency.
“The need for declaratory and injunctive relief … was no longer necessary,” Helfman said. “So, we could then get on to the question of what kind of relief would be provided to the class.”
Aside from the one-time payment to eligible class members, the settlement also requires that the city and state review their records every three months for a period of two years and issue one-time payments to class members who are not in receipt of public assistance at the time of a prior payment, but who are at the time of the review.
Class members will only be eligible to receive a payment under the settlement if they have an open Cash Assistance case and were sanctioned between July 8, 2007, and December 22, 2015, when the new law took effect.
The settlement was initially reached last year, but payments from the city didn't start until last month, according to court documents.
A spokesman for the New York City Law Department declined to comment on the litigation. A request for comment sent to the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance was not immediately returned Monday.
READ MORE:
Pro Bono Foster Care State Mentoring Program Set to Expand This Year in NY
Citing Racial Impact, Legal Aid Society Decries MTA Resolution to Ban Repeat Criminal Offenders
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250