Deleo v. Kaladjian

215 A.D.2d 520, 626 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 15, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 215 A.D.2d 520 (Deleo v. Kaladjian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deleo v. Kaladjian, 215 A.D.2d 520, 626 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the shelter allowances granted to the plaintiffs by the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), dated October 13, 1993, which granted the defendants’ motion pursuant [521]*521to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified by adding thereto a provision declaring that the shelter allowance did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the New York State Constitution and the Social Services Law failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted. "Although a duty of assistance to the needy is recognized by New York State’s Constitution (Jiggetts v Grinker [75 NY2d 411], 416; Tucker v Toia, 43 NY2d 1, 7), there is no provision in the State Constitution or Social Services Law requiring that current shelter allowances be set at a particular level for recipients of home relief’ (Matter of Gautam v Perales, 179 AD2d 509, 511).

We note that since this is a declaratory judgment action, the Supreme Court should have directed the entry of a declaration in favor of the defendants rather than the dismissal of the complaint (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901). Balletta, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brownley v. Doar
903 N.E.2d 1155 (New York Court of Appeals, 2009)
Brownley v. Doar
11 Misc. 3d 615 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
McVay v. Wing
303 A.D.2d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 A.D.2d 520, 626 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleo-v-kaladjian-nyappdiv-1995.