1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.2d
  4. 37 N.Y.2d
  5. 37 N.Y.2d 42 (1975)
 

MATTER OF JONES v. BERMAN

37 N.Y.2d 42 (1975)

In the Matter of Rebecca Jones, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of Her Minor Dependent Children and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. Leonard Berman, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of Westchester County, Respondent, and Abe Lavine, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant. Judy Domine, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Infant Children and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. Francis Schreck, as Commissioner of the Albany County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants. Betty Gipson, on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Infant Children and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Appellant-Respondent, v. Francis Schreck, as Commissioner of the Albany County Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided June 9, 1975.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Lawrence S. Kahn and Martin A. Schwartz for appellant-respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (David R. Spiegel and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled proceeding.

K. Wade Eaton for appellants-respondents in the second and third above-entitled proceedings.

Robert P. Roche, County Attorney (Stanley G. Walker and Philip R. Murray of counsel), for Francis Schreck, respondent-appellant in the second and third above-entitled proceedings.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Eileen A. Sullivan and Ruth Kessler Toch of counsel), for Abe Lavine, respondent-appellant in the second and third above-entitled proceedings.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur.

COOKE, J.

These three cases, involving common questions of law, have been consolidated for purposes of our disposition. The central issue presented by the several petitioners is whether subdivision (c) of section 372.2 of title 18 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (18 NYCRR 372.2 [c]) is invalid and void in that it conflicts with State and Federal law regarding...

NEVER MISS A DECISION. START YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.

Uncompromising quality. Enduring impact.
Your support ensures a bright future for independent legal reporting.

As you are aware we have offered this as a free subscription over the past years and we have now made it a paid service.Look forward to your continued patronage.

GET STARTED
OR

Read it with your Leagle account.
Sign in to continue


Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases