MATTER OF JESSUP v. D'Elia
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Brennin v. Perales (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Porter v. D'Elia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Henopp v. Wing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Buchanan v. Wing (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Couch v. Perales (N.Y. 1991)
- Corrigan v. DiGuardia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Cannistra v. County of Putnam (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
*1031 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner’s application for a grant of Aid to Dependent Children on behalf of her minor son was properly denied by respondents on the ground that petitioner possessed an automobile valued in excess of the statutory and regulatory $1,500 maximum (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub L 97-35, 42 USC §602 [a] [7] [B]; 45 CFR 233.20 [a] [3]; 18 NYCRR 352.23 [b] [2]). We reject petitioner’s reliance on Matter of Gunn v Blum (48 NY2d 58) because under these circumstances, that holding has been superseded by legislation, both Federal and State. Gunn was premised on the fact that there was neither "statute [nor] regulation authorizing termination of benefits to an entire family unit based on parental refusal to apply nonessential resources to the support obligation” (Matter of Gunn v Blum, supra, at 65, n 4). The passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (Pub L 97-35, 42 USC § 602 [a] [7] [B]) in 1981, with its attendant regulatory amendments, now requires that eligibility for a child within the family unit be determined based upon the family unit’s combined resources, the very statutory framework found lacking in Gunn (see, Pub L 97-35, 42 USC § 602 [a] [7] [B]; 45 CFR 233.20 [a] [3]; 18 NYCRR 352.23 [b] [2]).
Petitioner’s State constitutional claim has been considered and rejected (Matter of Jones v Blum, 64 NY2d 918, affg for reasons stated 101 AD2d 330; Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437).
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.