Posted on 12/02/2002 12:24:23 AM PST by chance33_98
NEW YORK SUPREME COURT - APPELLATE DIVISION Third Judicial Department
Decided and Entered: December 4, 1997, 79341
In the Matter of LIBERTY BUCHANAN et al., Petitioners, V. BRIAN WING, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services et al., Respondents
Calendar Date: October 1, 1997 Before: Cardona, P.J., Mikoll, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ.
Charlotte Bunzey, Legal Aid. Binghamton, for petitioners. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General (Lisa Le Cours of counsel), Albany, for Brian Wing, respondent. Philomena Stamato, Department of Social Services, Binghamton, for Thomas P. Hoke, respondent. Cardona, P.J.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLA article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Broome County) to review a determination of respondent State Commissioner of Social Services which denied petitioners request for continuance of their public assistance benefits.
Petitioners and their four minor children are recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (hereinafter ADC) (Social Services Law, section 343 et seq.) and food stamps from the Broome County Department of Social Services (hereinafter the Department). In February 1996, petitioners received notice from the Department that they were to participate in an identity verification procedure know as the automated finger imaging system (hereinafter AFIS) as a condition of eligibility for benefits required by 18 NYCRR 351.2 (a). Petitioners responded that they would not participate because of their religious convictions. Respondent Commissioner of the Department thereafter discontinued their ADC and food stamps entitlements for failure to comply.
Petitioners requested a fair hearing. At the hearing, petitioner Liberty Buchanan testified that since 1970 she was a Christian following a "Full Gospel" denomination which was "Pentecostal, Assembly of God." She stated that she did not regularly attend a church but studied and ministered at home and also watched the "700 Club" on television. Buchanan testified that it was her belief that "finger imaging may be the same thing in the Book of Revelations called the mark of the beast in Revelations 13 where you're inserted a small chip into you hand or finger" by use of laser technology. She further testified that "[a]ccording to what I believe, in the Bible, if I were to take the mark of the beast, which is what I believe finger imaging may be, it would be damnation to my eternal soul. I would be damned."
Petitioner Kenneth Urbach testified that his beliefs were identical to those of Buchanan. For its part, the Department demonstrated that a computer system took fingerprints electronically using a video image process and that no lasers or invasive technology were involved. Furthermore, no mark was left on the person.
Following the hearing, respondent State Commissioner of Social Services affirmed the Department's decision. Petitioners then commenced this proceeding seeking to annul the determination which was transferred to this court pursuant to CPLR 7804 (g).
We confirm. 18 NYCRR 351.26 (a) states, in relevant part, as follows:
[A] * * * recipient of public assistance is exempt from
complying with any requirement concerning eligibility
for public assistance if the * * * recipient establishes
that good cause exists for failing to comply with the
requirements. Except where otherwise specifically set
forth in any provision of this Title, good cause for failure
to comply with an eligibility requirement exists when
* * * (3) other extenuating circumstances, beyond the
control of the * * * recipient, exists which prevent the
* * * recipient from being reasonably expected to
comply with an eligibility requirement.
18 NYCRR 351.26 (b) requires recipients to notify their social services district of their reasons for failing to comply with an eligibility requirement and also to furnish evidence to support their claim of good cause (see 18 NYCRR 351.26 [b]).
Here, we conclude that respondents' determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate a good cause basis for exemption from the finger imaging requirement was rational and must be sustained. while petitioners testified to their belief that implantation of microchips and interaction with laser technology would brand them with the "mark of the beast" and thereby infringe upon their religious principles, they nevertheless failed to set forth any competent proof that the AFIS actually involved any invasive procedures marking them in violation of their beliefs. Notably, Buchanan testified that finger imaging "might" involve lasers and microchips and had "no idea" whether a laser was involved. Petitioners did not voice a religious objection to using computers or other types of technology and, in fact, they testified that they collected their benefits by using a device similar to an automated teller machine (ATM). Similarly, petitioners did not object to having their photographs taken or having their fingerprints taken with inkpads or clay molds. Given these circumstances, we cannot conclude that respondents acted irrationally in concluding that petitioners did not establish good cause to be exempted from the finger imaging requirement.
We have examined petitioners' constitutional claims and find them to be without merit. In our view, petitioners' failure to articulate a viable claim that they are being required to participate in an invasive procedure that is prohibited by their religious beliefs is dispositive to their arguments claiming a violation of their freedom to exercise their religion pursuant to the Federal and State Constitutions (US Const. 1st Amendment; NY Const. art 1, section 3). We are also unpersuaded by petitioners' contention that the
Department violated NY Constitution article XVII section 1 (which provides that aid and care of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the State) by discontinuing their public assistance benefits. Since petitioners cannot be classified as needy until such time as they are finger imaged to determine whether they are receiving duplicate benefits, no violation of their constitutional provisions has been stated. Moreover, contrary to petitioners' arguments, the discontinuance of public assistance to their entire family unit (see, 18 NYCRR 352.30) does not infringe the constitutional rights of their children (who are not named petitioners) in light of valid legislation premising the eligibility of the children within the family unit upon the eligibility of the entire household (see, Matter of Jessup v D'Elia, 69 NY2d 1030).
Mikoll, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
ADJUSTED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
ENTER:
Michael J. Novack
Clerk of the Court
Footnotes:
1 The AFIS uses a computer system that electronically takes fingerprints of index fingers on both hands of recipients using a computerized video image process, thereby eliminating the need for ink or cards (see 18 NYCRR 384.1 [a]).
2Throughout these proceedings, various compromise solutions were offered and rejected by the parties. Petitioners offered to put their fingerprints on inkpads or on clay molds for transference to the AFIS but the Department indicated that there was no feasible technology in place to accomplish this. At the hearing Buchanan offered to allow her left index finger alone to be imaged, but she later withdrew this offer after the Department agreed to the compromise.
3The "Administrative Directive to Commissioners of Social Services" states that "[i]f one required member of a case refuses to comply with the finger imaging requirement, the entire case is to be denied, because verification of eligibility by means of the finger imaging is a condition of eligibility for the household".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.