Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Newby v. Department of Human Servs.
A-2149-94T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 30, 1995). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51167
Description
Homeless AFDC Recipients Challenge New Jersey’s Inflexible 12-Month Limit on Temporary Rental Assistance
Abstract
Appellant homeless AFDC recipients have filed their brief on appeal
in this suit against the imposition by appellee New Jersey
Department of Human Services (DHS)of a 12-month time limit on
temporary rental assistance (TRA). Appellants’ TRA was
terminated without provision for any shelter alternative. All
shelter assistance ceased despite appellants’ full compliance
with mandated service plans, formulated with their local county
welfare agencies to help them secure permanent housing. Appellants
argue that DHS’s imposition of a 12-month time limit for the
TRA is inconsistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s
decision in L.T. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Human Services, 134
N.J. 304 (1993), and state law. In L.T., the supreme court
invalidated a 12-month limit on the TRA imposed on general
assistance (GA) recipients. The court held that the New Jersey
legislature intended the GA program to provide temporary shelter to
the neediest citizens and that a regulation terminating the TRA
without a fallback provision for shelter conflicted with that
intent. Appellants argue that the overarching principle of L.T.,
invalidating the inflexible and arbitrary termination of shelter
assistance applies equally to the emergency assistance program for
homeless AFDC recipients. Appellants assert that the goals and
operation of emergency assistance and its TRA component in both the
AFDC and GA programs are identical and that the termination of the
TRA disrupts efforts to resolve the homelessness of AFDC recipient
families.
