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
Reynolds v. Dowling
No. 401813/94 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Aug. 16, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51587
Description
Statute’s Amendment after Court’s Decision Does Not Make State Agency’s Position in Underlying Litigation Substantially Justified
Abstract
The court has held that respondent state agency’s position
was not substantially justified, despite subsequent legislation
annulling the effect of the court’s decision in the
underlying litigation, and that petitioner is entitled to an award
of attorney fees. Petitioner had challenged a regulation
prohibiting the retroactive payment of prior underpayments of home
relief benefits to persons no longer on public assistance. The
court held that the regulation was inconsistent with the
state’s social services law, which required officials to take
all necessary steps to correct any overpayment or underpayment to a
public-assistance recipient. Finding that the social services law
did not distinguish between home relief and AFDC recipients, the
court declared the challenged regulation null and void.
Subsequently, the state legislature amended the social services law
to eliminate the correction of underpayments to persons not
currently eligible for home relief or AFDC payments, except as
required by federal statute or regulation. Opposing
petitioner’s motion for attorney fees, respondent argued that
the amendment showed respondent’s interpretation of the
statute to have been correct and its position in the underlying
litigation substantially justified. The court, however, noted that
the amendment did not change the fact that prior to its amendment
the law was unambiguous in not differentiating between AFDC and
home relief recipients. Moreover, the amendment’s
purpose—to clarify the statute’s intent—did not
alter the court’s previous finding that the statute required
no clarification. The court awarded petitioner $13,195 in fees.
