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
Vega v. Eggleston
Index No. 02/401210 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York County, March 3, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55912
Description
New York State Agencies Agree on New Case Management Procedures in Adult Protective Services Program
Abstract
The parties settled this class action complaint, which alleged that
defendant New York City and New York State agency commissioners
failed to provide adult protective services to plaintiff adults
with disabilities. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated
state social service laws and their implementing regulations and
the state constitution by refusing to accept referrals and denying
protective services to individuals in need of shelter and
assistance. Defendants agreed to implement new case management
procedures, including but not limited to the following: The state
human resource agency would record all applications and referrals
for adult protective services in an electronic database or on
easily accessible logs. The state central intake unit would request
and record, at a minimum, information concerning each application
or referral, including (a) whether the client had a physical or
mental impairment and, if so, the nature of the impairment; (b)
whether the client’s impairment rendered the client unable to
advocate on client’s own behalf or unable to obtain services
necessary for client’s own care and protection; (c) whether
the client was willing to accept home care; and (d) whether any
third parties were providing assistance. For life-threatening
situations, the state agency would investigate and visit within
twenty-four hours or, for non-life-threatening cases, within 72
hours. The parties agreed that the state human resource agency
would not reject an application or referral, or fail to provide
appropriate services, including medical services, eviction
prevention, or relocation assistance, during eligibility
assessment. The state agency would give written notice of its
determination of eligibility to clients within fifteen days. Every
six months defendants would assess the quality of its applications,
referrals and determinations and give plaintiffs’ counsel the
survey results and underlying instruments.
