The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLIAM PAULEY, District Judge
On December 30, 2004, this Court issued its Memorandum and
Opinion granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' requests
for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction requiring
defendants to process applications for food stamps, Medicaid and
cash assistance in accord with federal and state law. See
Reynolds v. Giuliani, No. 98 Civ. 8877 (WHP), 2004 WL 3017014
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2004).
On January 13, 2005, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of
this Court's holdings that: (1) 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 387.8 (a) (2) (i)
(a) does not confer a privately enforceable right of action; and
(2) plaintiffs' claim under New York Social Services Law § 133 is
barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule
6.3, which provides in pertinent part: "There shall be served
with the notice of motion a memorandum setting forth concisely
the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes that
court has overlooked." Thus, the movant must demonstrate that the
court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters which,
had they been considered "might reasonably have altered the
result reached by the court." Consol. Gold Fields v. Anglo Am.
Corp., 713 F. Supp. 1457, 1476 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); accord In re
Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litig., Nos. 01 Civ. 2014
(WHP), 01 Civ. 11420 (WHP), 2004 WL 789770, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court overlooked several Second
Circuit decisions enforcing the obligation of local public
assistance agencies to provide assistance to the needy even where
such agencies also serve as agents of the state for some
purposes. See Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d
Cir. 2004); Koster v. Perales, 903 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1990);
Holley v. Lavine, 605 F.2d 623 (2d Cir. 1979). This Court notes
that the issue concerning Eleventh Amendment immunity was not
fully briefed or argued by the parties prior to this Court's
December 30, 2004 Memorandum and Opinion.
After considering the parties' motion papers, plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration is granted. Upon reconsideration, this
Court concludes that plaintiffs' pendent state claims under
18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 387.8 (a) (2) (i) (a) and New York Social Services
Law § 133 are privately enforceable in this action. This Court's
reasoning is set forth in an Amended Memorandum and Opinion dated
February 14, 2005.
To avoid piecemeal determinations, this Court amends its
original findings of fact and conclusions of law to reflect its
decision on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The December
30, 2004 Memorandum and Opinion is withdrawn and is superceded by
the Amended Memorandum and Opinion dated February 14, 2005.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...