« ACTION ALERT: TELL YOUR SENATORS TO INCLUDE ADAP AS TrOOP! | Main | WAXING ELOQUENT IN WASHINGTON »
April 18, 2008
PAYING IT BACKWARDS
 |
Taking money from poor people isn't how the City and State should pay for their mistakes |
In the first step towards an important victory for poor New Yorkers, on Wednesday a New York State Supreme Court Justice denied the City and State's motion to dismiss Williams v. Hansell, a case challenging the HIV/AIDS Services Administration (HASA) for taking more than $3,000 from James Williams, a poor person living with AIDS, to recoup money lost through its own errors. Justice Paul G. Fineman ruled that "the issue is one of importance and novelty" and is allowing the case to go forward.
In 2004, Williams applied for federal SSI benefits. Because that process can take more than a year, in the meantime, Williams signed up for interim HASA benefits. Although Williams informed HASA that the federal Section 8 program was paying his rent, HASA sent duplicative rent checks to his landlord. The landlord unsurprisingly cashed more than $3,000 in checks from HASA even though Williams' rent was being paid by the federal government.
Yet once HASA realized its mistake, instead of going after the landlord, it took the money from Williams. When Williams filed a Fair Hearing to challenge the City, the State refused to hear his challenge and failed to document the grounds upon which it did so, depriving Williams of due process.
Once Housing Works sued the City and the State on behalf of Williams in April 2007, however, HASA immediately reimbursed Williams. "What the government often does is, when they know they will lose on the law, they say, 'Here's your 3,000 dollars. Let's make the case go away,'" said Housing Works staff attorney Robert Bacigalupi, lead counsel on the case. "It's called 'favorable mooting.''"
Though typically a case no longer has standing once the plaintiff recovers his money, Justice Fineman agreed with Housing Works' argument that because the case is both important and likely to reoccur, the court can proceed to decide this issue on behalf of other poor people, an exception to the so-called "mootness doctrine." Bacigalupi argued effectively that the government attempting to recover money it paid in error is a common problem in the City and State.
"The great thing about this decision is that the justice credited the solid evidence that this is a recurrent problem in his decision, which makes it hard for the City and State to contest the decision," Bacigalupi said.
But that doesn't mean they won't try. Hopefully, though, they will realize that poor people shouldn't pay for their errors and think better of any further challenges.