Legal Opinion · Dissent

Khrapunskiy v. Doar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 17, 2008Published

1Dissent

Catterson, J. (dissenting).

Because I believe that neither the court below nor the majority may usurp the function of the Legislature to convert an appropriation for a supplement to a federal benefit into a fully-fledged, new state-funded program, I must respectfully dissent.

Until 1996, the plaintiffs in this class of elderly, blind and disabled persons who are lawful residents of New York State but are not American citizens were eligible for federal Supplemental Security Income (hereinafter referred to as SSI) benefits, and consequently were also eligible for an additional state payment (ASP)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mathews v. DiazSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. De Canas v. BicaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. MATTER OF ALIESSA v. NovelloNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. Garvey v. KirbyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API