Nature of Claims: This case challenges the City's and State's failure to provide preventive services in the form of emergency shelter and other housing services to avert or abbreviate the placement of the children of homeless or inadequately sheltered families in “voluntary” foster care. Claims are based on State statutes favoring preservation of the family unit through provision of preventive services intended to prevent or shorten foster care placement of children. Plaintiffs sought an order requiring the City to develop and implement meaningful case plans to ensure the provision of preventive housing services. Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin the State from imposing a 90-day limit on emergency shelter as a preventive housing service.
Background: The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s injunction requiring the City and State to develop preventive services case plans for the named parties, and enjoining the State’s arbitrary 90-day limit on preventive services in the nature of emergency shelter. A separate injunction issued by the trial court on January 14, 2000 prohibits the City from seeking foster care based solely on the lack of available housing.
Current Status: On February 8, 2006, the City moved by order to show cause to dismiss the action, and the related cases of McCain v. Bloomberg, Lamboy v. Eggleston, and Slade v. Bloomberg, on the ground that they are moot and do not state a cause of action for damages. (For further information, see McCain v.Bloomberg.)
No. Persons Affected: Approximately 1,000
Reported Decisions: Martin A. v. Gross, 138 Misc. 2d 212, 524 N.Y.S.2d 121 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1987); Martin A. v. Gross, 153 A.D.2d 812, 546 N.Y.S.2d 75 (1st Dep’t 1989), appeal dismissed, 75 N.Y.2d 808, 552 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1990); Cosentino v. Perales, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 30, 1996, at 21, col. 6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co.).