Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Matter of Leggio v. Devine

Posted on 2019-09-162020-08-06

The question in this case is whether the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) properly calculated petitioner’s income in determining her eligibility for food stamps benefits by including child support payments that petitioner received to support two of her children.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamps program, provides assistance to households based upon the household’s “income.” Typically, where a household includes members who are ineligible to participate in SNAP, those ineligible members’ income continues to count in calculating the household’s income. But a different rule applies for college-student household members who do not comply with SNAP college-student eligibility rules; income received by such ineligible household members does not count toward household income.

In this case, petitioner’s household includes two of her children who are college students that do not comply with SNAP college-student eligibility rules. Petitioner receives child support payments to support those children. In determining her eligibility for SNAP benefits, OTDA counted the child support payments as petitioner’s income under its interpretation of the SNAP regulations that a child support payment constitutes income to the person who receives the payment, not income to the child it supports (if the child and recipient are different people). Counting the child support payments as petitioner’s income meant that her household’s income exceeded SNAP thresholds, making her household ineligible for benefits.

Petitioner challenged the benefit denial in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court transferred to the Appellate Division for substantial evidence review. The Second Department confirmed OTDA’s determination. The court rejected OTDA’s interpretation of its regulations, holding instead that child support payments were income of the supported children. But the court held that OTDA’s determination was nevertheless proper, because petitioner’s ineligible college-student income should be counted in determining petitioner’s household’s eligibility for benefits.

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Return to the case page for Matter of Leggio v. Devine.

By Phil on 2019-09-16.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com