THE FEDERAL “SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME (SSI)” PROGRAM PROPERLY USES AN SSI APPLICANT’S BENEFITS TO REIMBURSE NEW YORK FOR “SAFETY NET ASSISTANCE (SNA)” PAID BY NEW YORK TO THE APPLICANT DURING THE SSI APPLICATION PROCESS, WHICH CAN TAKE MONTHS OR YEARS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, over a three-judge dissent, affirming the Appellate Division, determined New York’s Safety Net Assistance program (SNA program) was entitled to reimbursement of the funds provided to applicants awaiting the receipt of the federal Supplemental Security Income program (SSI program) benefits. It may take months or years before an SSI applicant starts receiving SSI payments. During the waiting period an SSI applicant may apply for New York’s SNA program benefits. The applicant is required to work to receive the SNA payments which are based on the federal minimum wage.  The SSI applicants, who are required to work for the SNA benefits during the waiting period, receive the same payments as SNA recipients who do not work. The SSI applicants (the petitioners in this case) argued that using an SSI applicant’s federal SSI benefits to reimburse New York’s SNA program violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by depriving them of the wages earned during the waiting period. The majority rejected that argument:

… 42 USC § 1383 (g) [SSI program] expressly authorizes the government to withhold benefits payable to an applicant in “an amount sufficient to reimburse the State (or political subdivision) for . . . assistance financed from State or local funds and furnished for meeting basic needs” … . Petitioners do not dispute that SNA generally qualifies as interim assistance, or that 42 USC § 1383 (g) authorizes states to be reimbursed for interim assistance from a retroactive SSI award … . Instead, petitioners effectively ask us to read an exception into 42 USC § 1383 (g) for interim assistance that is conditioned on participation in work activities. But the plain language of the statute does not distinguish between assistance that is conditioned on work activities and assistance that is not so conditioned (e.g., because the recipient is unable to work). Nor is there an obvious reason why Congress would have wished to distinguish between the two types of assistance. Both fulfill the same portion of an SSI applicant’s basic needs during the relevant waiting period, which the federal government would otherwise be financially obligated to cover. Matter of Andersen v Hein, 2026 NY Slip Op 03259, CtApp 5-26-26