May 4, 2007
TELL IT TO THE JUDGE(S)
 |
The Melendez family's fate is in their hands. |
On May 1, dozens of Housing Works clients and staff filed into New York State's highest tribunal, Albany's Court of Appeals, to hear Housing Works' Senior Staff Attorney Armen Merjian argue the final legal installment of Melendez v Wing.
As previously reported in the Update, Housing Works filed the Melendez suit against the state in 2002 in an effort to restore "SSI invisibility" to 1,100 poor New York families struggling with HIV and caring for a disabled child. The Melendez family loses more than $500 a month in public assistance benefits from the HIV/AIDS Services Administration because New York State counts the federal assistance (SSI) that their disabled child receives against the family's welfare budget. That calculation violates a New York statute that allows children to retain their SSI benefits to address their special needs. The intermediate appellate court unanimously sided with Housing Works, finding the state's practice illegal.
After listening to a protracted half-hour of argumentation over the arbitration of a tobacco-company lawsuit, the Housing Works contingent perked up when Melendez got underway. With hundreds of oil paintings of past New York judges looking on, the seven Court of Appeals justices peppered both the state's attorney and Merjian with questions in an effort to grasp the case's complicated chronology, the meaning of "public assistance," and what the state legislature intends when they appropriate money for public-assistance programs.
While the court mostly grappled with nuanced legal questions, the proceedings produced one notable emotional moment. One justice suggested to the state's attorney that SSI was "intended to make a child whole," and that forcing families to use the child's SSI benefits for rent "is not what the legislature intended." The humanity and simplicity of his words elicited audible murmurs of audience approval.
Merjian is cautiously optimistic about the outcome. "Any experienced lawyer will tell you that you walk away with no understanding of how it will go," says Merjian, who has taken cases to the Court of Appeals for two decades. "But I was pleased that the justices were engaged and understood the issues and read the briefs — their questions suggest that they understood that the statute was really intended to protect the Melendez family and their disabled child."
Merjian, who expects a decision within six months at the latest, said that the Spitzer administration's decision to amend the state's SSI invisibility policy (see above) didn't yet have bearing on Melendez: "Until the state fully reverses this policy, which hasn't happened yet, this remains a critical issue for the court to decide. A legal finding for our side would protect the Melendez family and future generations. We hope we'll get that."