UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW …onlineresources.wnylc.net/pb/docs/PedersenSettlement.pdf · 08-CV-313 (NG) (VPP) WHEREAS, the plaintiffs, Brian Pedersen, Bernadette

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

BRIAN PEDERSEN, BERNADETTE KEEHNER-McDERMOTT, DOROTHY KESTNER and MARGARET RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

DAVID A. HANSELL, as Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family Assistance and ROBERT DOAR, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services,

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- x

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT

08-CV-313 (NG) (VPP)

WHEREAS, the plaintiffs, Brian Pedersen, Bernadette Keehner-McDermott,

Dorothy Kestner and Margaret Riley (the “Individual Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint on January

22, 2008, in the above-captioned action against the defendants, David A. Hansell, as

Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State

Department of Family Assistance (the “State Defendant”), and Robert Doar as Commissioner of

the New York City Department of Social Services (the “City Defendant”) (collectively

“Defendants”); and

WHEREAS, the Individual Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves

individually and all others similarly situated, a purported class of New York City “Autopay

Heater Households,” as defined herein; and

WHEREAS, the Individual Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deprived them and

others similarly situated of their constitutional and statutory right to adequate notice and an

Case 1:08-cv-00313-NG-VVP Document 50-3 Filed 12/03/09 Page 2 of 41

opportunity for a fair hearing to contest eligibility determinations pertaining to their receipt of

Home Energy Assistance Program ("HEAP") benefits; and

WHEREAS, the Defendants deny any wrongdoing or any liability to the

Individual Plaintiffs or the proposed Class Plaintiffs, as defined herein; and

WHEREAS, the Defendants have undertaken to modify the notices of HEAP

eligibility to the Class stipulated herein in a form acceptable to the Individual Plaintiffs, on

behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs, as defined herein, which forms are

annexed as Exhibits A and B; and

WHEREAS, the Defendants have issued a supplemental notice to Autopay

Heater Households for the 2007-2008 HEAP program year in a form acceptable to the Individual

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class Plaintiffs, as defined herein, which

form is annexed as Exhibit C, and have provided a copy of the same to the Individual Plaintiffs;

and

WHEREAS, the Individual Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the

Class Plaintiffs, as defined herein, and Defendants are entering into the within Stipulation and Order

of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) solely for the purpose of settling the disputes between them and to

avoid further litigation, and without admitting any fault or liability, and desire to settle this action on

terms and conditions just and fair to all parties:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the undersigned

that this action is settled and dismissed, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant to Rule

23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the following terms and conditions:

DEFINITIONS

1. For purposes of this Stipulation, the following definitions shall apply:

Page 2 of 17


(a) “Adequacy Provisions”: Notice to Autopay Households that complies with 18

N.Y.C.R.R. § 358-2.2(a), as applicable to the HEAP program, and includes:

(1) Within the written notice provided to Autopay Heater Households:

1. A reference to the specific legal authority for the Regular

HEAP Benefit provided;

2. A method, which shall include, but is not limited to, a toll-free

telephone number, for an Autopay Heater Household to obtain

a copy of the HEAP State Plan;

3. A summary of the eligibility criteria for Autopay Heater

Households upon which the Regular HEAP Benefit is based.

(2) Within the written notice provided to Autopay Renter Households, a

notice that alerts the household that a larger benefit may be available

and the method by which to apply for the larger benefit.

(b) “Autopay Household”: A New York City low-income household which receives

family assistance, safety net assistance and/or Food Stamps and/or Supplemental Security

Income at the "Living Alone" rate ("SSI Code A") and which is identified in the Defendants’

computer systems to be eligible to receive a Regular HEAP Benefit according to the computer

records of the State and City Defendants on the date(s) specified and/or approved by the State

Defendant.

(c) “Autopay Heater Household”: An Autopay Household which is identified in the

Defendants’ computer systems: (1) as paying separately for residential heating costs; and (2) to

be eligible to receive a Regular HEAP benefit according to the records of the State and City

Defendants on the date(s) specified and/or approved by the State Defendant.

Page 3 of 17


(d) “Autopay Renter Household”: An Autopay Household which is identified in the

Defendants’ computer systems as: (1) having their residential heating costs included in their rent;

and (2) eligible to receive a Regular HEAP benefit according to the computer records of the State

and City Defendants on the date(s) specified and/or approved by the State Defendant.

(e) “City Defendant”: The defendant in this action captioned as Robert Doar, as

Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social Services (also known as the New

York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”)), and his successors and assigns.

(f) “Class Plaintiffs”: Autopay Heater Households, including Autopay Households who

received an autopay renter notice when they should have been issued an autopay heater notice,

and who, on the dates specified and/or approved by the State Defendant since January 22, 2005

were eligible for a Regular HEAP Benefit and should have been issued an autopay heater notice

based on computer records of the State and City Defendants on the date(s) specified and/or

approved by the State Defendant.

(g) “Effective Date”: Thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of the Order and Final

Judgment in this action.

(h) “Family Assistance”: Public assistance benefits reimbursed in part by the federal

program of block grants to States for temporary assistance to needy families authorized by 42

U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7 and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq., implemented in New

York pursuant to New York Social Services Law (“N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law”) §§ 349 et seq.

(i) “Food Stamps”: Benefits provided pursuant to the federal food stamp supplemental

nutrition assistance program authorized by 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1320b-7, and 8

U.S.C. §§ 1611 et seq., and federal regulations at 7 C.F.R. Parts 271 through 282 and

Page 4 of 17


implemented in New York by N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 95 and 147 and State regulations at 18

N.Y.C.R.R. Parts 358, 359 and 387.

(j) “HEAP Program Year”: The specific time period designated annually by the New

York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance during which local social services

departments are authorized to accept applications for HEAP benefits.

(k) “HEAP State Plan”: An annual application made by New York State Office of

Temporary and Disability Assistance to the United States Department of Health and Human

Services for a grant under the Low Income Energy Assistance statute, 42 U.S.C. § 8621 et seq., to

assist low-income households in meeting their immediate home energy needs.

(l) “Individual Plaintiffs”: The individual plaintiffs named in the caption of this action

action: Brian Pedersen, Bernadette Keehner-McDermott, Dorothy Kestner and Margaret Riley.

(m) “Plaintiffs”: Collectively the Class Plaintiffs and Individual Plaintiffs as defined

herein.

(n) “Regular HEAP Benefit”: A federally-funded annual supplement to assist low-

income households in paying a portion of their residential energy costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§8621 et seq., N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 97, and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 393.4(c).

(o) “Safety Net Assistance”: Public assistance provided pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv.

Law §§ 157 et seq. to persons not eligible to receive Family Assistance.

(p) “Sample Autopay Heater Household Notice”: The sample Regular HEAP Benefit

notice annexed as Exhibit A.

(q) “Sample Autopay Renter Household Notice”: The sample Regular HEAP Benefit

notice annexed as Exhibit B.

(r) “Sample Notice of Class Action Relief”: The sample notice annexed as Exhibit D.

Page 5 of 17


(s) “‘So Ordering’ of this Stipulation”: The Court’s so ordering of this Stipulation

constituting final approval of its terms after a hearing, upon finding that said terms are fair,

reasonable, and adequate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2).

(t) “State Defendant”: The defendant in this action captioned as David A. Hansell, as

Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State

Department of Family Assistance (“OTDA”), and his successors and assigns.

(u) “Supplemental Security Income Code A” (“SSI Code A”): Benefits furnished to

individuals by the United States Social Security Administration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et.

seq. under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, including the additional state payments

furnished to residents of New York State by the Social Security Administration pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1382e and N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 207 et. seq., who are eligible to receive a Regular

HEAP benefit pursuant to N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 97 and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 393.4.

(v) “105 Day Rule”: Those portions of New York State Regulations set forth at 18

N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 358-3.5(b)(4) and 393.5(e) which limit the acceptance of fair hearing requests

made more than 105 days after the district terminates the receipt of applications for Regular

HEAP Benefits.

CLASS CERTIFICATION

2. This action is hereby certified as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23 (b)(2)

with the Class defined as:

Autopay Heater Households, including Autopay Households who received an autopay renter notice when they should have been issued an autopay heater notice, and who, on the dates specified and/or approved by the State Defendant since January 22, 2005 were eligible for a Regular HEAP Benefit and should have been issued an autopay heater notice based on computer records of the State and City Defendants on the date(s) specified and/or approved by the State Defendant.

Page 6 of 17


CLASS RELIEF

3. The City Defendant agrees, if and as permitted and approved by the State Defendant, to

issue to Autopay Heater Households a notice that substantially contains the text and

content of the Sample Autopay Heater Household Notice.

4. The State Defendant shall not impose the 105 Day Rule against any Class Plaintiff who

requests a fair hearing for Regular HEAP Benefits.

5. The State Defendant shall inform all OTDA Administrative Law Judges and other

relevant OTDA fair hearing staff of the terms of paragraph “4” supra.

6. On or before the sixtieth (60th) day after this Stipulation is So Ordered by the Court, the

State Defendant shall commence rulemaking proceedings to amend the 105 Day Rule in

such manner as to eliminate the provision set forth in 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 358-3.5(b)(4)

stating that “in no event may a hearing request made more than 105 days after the district

terminates the receipt of applications for the program year be accepted”, and to eliminate

the provision set forth in 18 N.Y.C.R.R. § 393.5(e) stating that “In no event shall a

hearing request made more than 105 days after the district terminates the receipt of

applications for the program year be accepted.”

7. Within sixty (60) days after this Stipulation is So Ordered by the Court, Defendants shall

provide notice to Class Plaintiffs, in the form of the Sample Notice of Class Action Relief

annexed as Exhibit D, as follows:

a. The Sample Notice of Class Action Relief shall be reproduced by the Defendants

on 11” x 17” paper and shall be posted at the following locations, in such manner

as Class Plaintiffs will be likely to see the notice if they visit such locations, until

Page 7 of 17


the closing date specified by the State Defendant for the 2009–2010 HEAP

Program Year:

i. HRA Job Centers and Non-Cash Assistance Food Stamp Centers;

ii. OTDA Fair Hearing Centers;

iii. HRA HEAP Field Offices.

b. Defendants shall provide counsel for Class Plaintiffs with fifty (50) copies of the

11” x 17” paper notice described in paragraph 7(a) supra and counsel for Class

Plaintiffs shall post said notices at such locations and in such manner as counsel

deems likely to be observed by Class Plaintiffs, in conformity with all statutes,

rules and regulations governing the posting of printed notices. Counsel for Class

Plaintiffs shall notify the undersigned counsel of all locations where copies of the

notices are posted or otherwise distributed.

c. State Defendant shall post an electronic form of the Sample Notice of Class

Action Relief on OTDA’s web site found at http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/.

RELIEF TO BRIAN PEDERSEN

8. The State Defendant shall authorize payment and cause payment to be made to plaintiff

Brian Pedersen the sum of nine hundred dollars and no cents ($900.00) in full resolution

of all of Brian Pedersen’s claims in this lawsuit and in accord with paragraphs 16 - 17

infra. Payment shall be made by delivering a check to Class Plaintiffs’ counsel, payable

to “Peter Vollmer, as counsel for Brian Pederson.”

Page 8 of 17


http://www.otda.state.ny.us/main/

MONITORING AND REPORTING

9. State Defendant will notify the undersigned counsel of the closing date of the 2008–2009

and 2009–2010 HEAP Program Years. The City Defendant shall report to the

undersigned counsel, within one hundred-twenty (120) days after the close of the relevant

HEAP Program Year following the Effective Date, the number of Autopay Heater

Households who, according to the City Defendant’s records, were issued autopay heater

notices during the 2008–2009 HEAP Program Year and 2009–2010 HEAP Program Year

by City Defendant.

10. Within sixty (60) days after notices of Regular HEAP Benefits are mailed by City

Defendant to Autopay Households for the 2009-2010 Regular HEAP Program Year, City

Defendant shall provide to the undersigned counsel:

a. a sample copy of the notice issued to Autopay Renter Households for the 2009–

2010 HEAP Program Year; and

b. a sample copy of the notice issued to Autopay Heater Households for the 2009–

2010 HEAP Program Year.

11. Within one hundred-twenty (120) days after the close of the relevant HEAP Program

Year following the Effective Date, the State Defendant shall provide to the undersigned

counsel:

a. a list of the fair hearings, itemized by fair hearing case number, requested by

Autopay Heater Households to contest the adequacy of their Regular HEAP

Benefit, for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 HEAP Program Years; and

b. copies of the decision(s) after fair hearing resulting from the fair hearings that

were so requested and heard.

Page 9 of 17


12. If this Stipulation is “So Ordered” more than one hundred-twenty (120) days after the

close of the 2008-2009 HEAP Program Year, the State Defendant promptly shall provide

the undersigned counsel with the 2008–2009 HEAP Program Year materials described in

paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) supra.

JURISDICTION, DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MODIFICATION

13. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action, solely for purposes of enforcement of

this Stipulation, until nine (9) months after the date of the closing of the 2009-2010

HEAP Program Year, as determined by the State Defendant, at which time this

Stipulation will terminate. State Defendant will notify the undersigned counsel of the

closing date of the 2009-2010 HEAP Program Year.

14. During the term of this Stipulation, if Class Plaintiffs’ counsel has evidence that either

the City Defendant or State Defendant is systemically failing to comply with this

Stipulation, counsel for Class Plaintiffs shall, within thirty (30) days of learning of same,

notify counsel for the Defendants in writing of the specific basis and evidence as to each

Defendant, pertaining to the claim(s) of non-compliance. Within thirty (30) days of such

notice, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer to resolve the allegation(s) of

systemic non-compliance, in good faith without the need for judicial intervention. If the

parties are unable to resolve the allegation of systemic non-compliance within sixty (60)

days of Class Plaintiffs’ counsel providing written notice consistent with the terms of this

paragraph, Class Plaintiffs may seek leave of the Court to move for enforcement of this

Stipulation and the Defendants may oppose.

15. Notwithstanding the terms of this Stipulation:

Page 10 of 17


a. The Defendants reserve the right to implement, change, or otherwise alter or

amend the procedures and/or requirements of this Stipulation if such changes are

required by intervening changes in federal or State statute or regulation or the

HEAP State Plan which are inconsistent with the terms of this Stipulation.

During the term of this Stipulation, the Defendants shall provide written

notification to counsel for Class Plaintiffs, by certified mail or by hand delivery

with written acknowledgement of receipt, of a required change at least thirty (30)

days prior to the commencement of implementation, unless the Defendants are

required to commence implementation of such a required change in less than

thirty (30) days. If the Defendants are required to commence implementation of a

required change in less than thirty (30) days, counsel for the Defendants shall

provide such notice no later than seven (7) business days after learning thereof.

The Plaintiffs may seek to challenge whether the change is required by federal or

State statute or regulation and/or the HEAP State Plan, and the Defendants may

oppose, but implementation of the change will not be withheld pending such

challenge.

b. The State Defendant agrees that the Adequacy Provisions, as defined herein, shall

continue to be employed in autopay heater notices and autopay renter notices, in

substantially the same form as the Adequacy Provisions incorporated in the

Sample Autopay Heater Household Notice and the Sample Autopay Renter

Household Notice.

Page 11 of 17


PLAINTIFFS’ RELEASE OF DEFENDANTS

16. Upon the Court’s approval of this Stipulation as fair, reasonable and adequate, Individual

Plaintiffs, for themselves and for the Class Plaintiffs, and their heirs, executors,

administrators and assigns shall release the City of New York, State of New York, New

York City Human Resources Administration, New York City Department of Social

Services, New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, defendants

Robert Doar, David Hansell and their successors in interest, and all present and former

officials, employees and agents of the City of New York, State of New York, New York

City Human Resources Administration, New York City Department of Social Services,

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, in their individual and

official capacities, and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, from

all rights of action, proceedings, claims and liability concerning, connected with, related

to or arising out of claims and causes of action raised in the complaint in the above-

captioned action, including claims for costs and attorneys’ fees as provided in paragraphs

19 – 21 infra.

17. Upon the “So Ordering” of this Stipulation by the Court, Plaintiffs, including Individual

Plaintiffs, shall execute and deliver to Defendants’ attorneys all documents necessary to

effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a release from each Individual

Plaintiff based on the terms of this Stipulation, in the form annexed as Exhibit E.

NOTICE, OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT

AND APPROVAL OF THIS STIPULATION 18. After notice and an opportunity to comment on this Stipulation have been provided to the

Class Plaintiffs, the Court shall determine whether to approve this Stipulation as being a

Page 12 of 17


fair, reasonable and adequate settlement of this action. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 23(e), the Court will determine the manner in which notice of this

Stipulation and an opportunity to comment will be given to the Class Plaintiffs. This

Stipulation shall not take effect until the Court enters an order approving the Stipulation

as a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement of this action.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

19. State Defendant agrees to pay the Law Office of Peter Vollmer, P.C., as Counsel for

Class Plaintiffs, the sum of $41,704.50 (forty-one thousand, seven hundred and four

dollars and fifty cents) in full and final satisfaction of any and all claims for attorneys’

fees and costs against State Defendant in this action for the period from the

commencement of this action through the Court’s so-ordering of this Stipulation and

Order of Settlement. Said payment shall be subject to the approval of all appropriate

State officials including, with respect to payment, the New York State Comptroller, in

accordance with the provisions of New York Public Officers Law § 17. Should the

payment of said attorneys’ fees and costs be disapproved by the New York State

Comptroller, then the provisions of this paragraph shall be deemed null and void, and

Plaintiffs shall have the option of making an appropriate motion seeking counsel fees and

costs claimed against the State Defendant as a result of this litigation. In the event that

the aforesaid payments, if approved, are not made within one hundred twenty days (120)

days after the “So Ordering” of this Stipulation, interest shall accrue thereon at a rate of

seven per centum per annum, beginning on the one hundred and twenty-first (121st) day

after such date.

Page 13 of 17


20. City Defendant agrees to pay the total sum of $41,704.50 (forty-one thousand, seven

hundred and four dollars and fifty cents) to the Law Office of Peter Vollmer, P.C., as

Counsel for Class Plaintiffs, in full satisfaction of any and all claims for attorneys’ fees

and costs sought by the Individual Plaintiffs or by Class Plaintiffs as against the City

Defendant in this action for the period from the commencement of this action through the

Court’s “So Ordering” of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement. Payment of the

amount owed by City Defendant shall be made no later than ninety (90) days from the

date that a “So Ordered” copy of this Stipulation has been docketed with the Clerk of the

Court. In the event that the aforesaid payments are not made within ninety days (90)

days after the “So Ordering” of this Stipulation, interest shall accrue thereon at a rate of

five per centum per annum, beginning on the ninety-first (91st) day after such date.

21. Payment shall be made by the City Defendant and the State Defendant, respectively, by

delivering checks payable in the amounts stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 supra to the Law

Office of Peter Vollmer, P.C., at 19 Hawthorne Road, Sea Cliff, New York 11579.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

22. Counsel for Class Plaintiffs shall protect the confidentiality of all Class Plaintiffs’ case

information provided by the Defendants under the terms of this Stipulation and shall not

disclose such information to any individual or organization, other than the individual

Class Plaintiff whose case is involved or an employee or designee of the Defendants,

except as necessary to the monitoring and enforcement of this Stipulation.

23. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by any of the Defendants

that they have in any manner or way violated Individual Plaintiffs’ or Class Plaintiffs’

rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes,

Page 14 of 17


ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or the City

of New York or any other rules, regulations or bylaws of any department or subdivision

of the City of New York or the State of New York.

24. This stipulation shall not be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation or

settlement negotiations, except in an action or proceeding by an individual Class Plaintiff

to enforce the terms of this Stipulation.

25. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City of

New York, the City Defendant, the State of New York, or the State Defendant.

26. This Stipulation contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties hereto,

and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered into

prior to the execution of this Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the instant

proceeding shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and

conditions contained herein.

27. Each of the undersigned represents that (s)he is authorized to enter into this Stipulation and

sign for and bind the party or parties for whom they execute the Stipulation.

28. All parties to this Stipulation have participated in its drafting; consequently, any ambiguity

shall not be construed for or against any party.

29. If any of the dates or periods of time described in this Stipulation fall or end on a public

holiday or on a weekend, the date or period of time shall be extended to the next business

day.

30. All correspondence concerning this Stipulation should be sent to the following (or to such

other address as the recipient named below shall specify by notice in writing hereunder):

Page 15 of 17


To City Defendant: David A. Rosinus, Jr., Assistant Corporation Counsel Corporation Counsel of the City of New York New York City Law Department 100 Church Street, Room 2-165 New York, New York 10007 Tel: (212) 788-8316 E-mail: [email protected]

To State Defendant: John Gasior, Assistant Attorney General

New York State Attorney General 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Tel: (212) 416-8570 E-mail: [email protected]

To Plaintiffs and/or Class: Peter Vollmer, Esq. Law Office Of Peter Vollmer, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs 19 Hawthorne Road Sea Cliff, New York 11579

Tel: (516) 277-1156 E-mail: [email protected]

31. Except as provided in paragraph 15(a) supra, this Stipulation may not be modified

without the express written agreement of counsel for the parties. Absent such agreement,

the parties may seek a modification of this Stipulation only for good cause shown, with

the Court’s approval, upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to counsel for the other parties.

32. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts, and each counterpart, when executed

shall have the full efficacy of a signed original. Photocopies of such signed counterparts

may be used in lieu of the originals for any purpose.

Page 16 of 17


mailto:[email protected]




EXHIBIT A








EXHIBIT B





EXHIBIT C








EXHIBIT D


NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION RELIEF TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVING BENEFITS IN THE

HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HEAP) AND RIGHT OF CLASS MEMBERS TO A FAIR HEARING

If you pay separately for your residential heating costs and automatically received a Regular (non-emergency) Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) benefit, without filing an application, a recent settlement in a federal class action law suit called Pedersen v. Hansell (08-CV-313, Eastern District of New York) (“Pedersen v. Hansell”) may concern you. The federal district court in Brooklyn has approved a settlement between the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”), the New York State Office of Temporary Assistance (“OTDA”), and a class of persons receiving family assistance, safety net assistance and/or Food Stamps and/or Supplemental Security Income at the "Living Alone" rate ("SSI Code A"), who, on or after January 22, 2005: (1) paid for their own residential heating costs; (2) were eligible for a Regular HEAP benefit; and (3) did not submit an application for a Regular HEAP benefit (the “Pedersen Class”). If you have a question about the court approved settlement, you may contact the attorney who represents the Pedersen Class, Peter Vollmer, by calling 516-277-1156. The federal court cannot order OTDA to recalculate past HEAP benefits for persons who are part of the Pedersen Class. However, persons in the Pedersen Class may be able to appeal any prior decisions regarding their regular HEAP eligibility or HEAP benefits through New York State's Fair Hearing process. OTDA has agreed that it shall not impose the 105 day rule found at 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 358-3.5(b)(4) and 393.5(e) against any person in the Pedersen Class who requests a fair hearing for Regular HEAP Benefits. CONTACT INFORMATION TO REQUEST A FAIR HEARING, CONTACT: New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance Mail: NYS OTDA Office of Administrative Hearings P.O. Box 1930 Albany, NY 12201-1930 Fax: (518) 473-6735 Telephone: (800) 342-3334 In Person: New York State Office of Temporary and Disability

Assistance (OTDA) 14 Boerum Place, Brooklyn, NY or 330 West 34th Street, third floor, New York, NY

Web site: http://www.otda.state.ny.us/oah/forms.asp When communicating with OTDA, tell them you are requesting a Fair Hearing pursuant to the Pedersen v. Hansell fair hearing notice.


http://www.otda.state.ny.us/oah/forms.asp

EXHIBIT E


EXHIBIT E

RELEASE

KNOW THAT I, [INSERT NAME OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF], a plaintiff in

the action entitled Pedersen v. Hansell, (08-CV-313, Eastern District of New York), in

consideration of the payment of nine hundred dollars ($900.00) by the State of New York to

Brian Pedersen and other valuable consideration by the State of New York and the City of New

York, do hereby release and discharge the Defendants David A. Hansell, as Commissioner of the

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance of the New York State Department of Family

Assistance, and Robert Doar, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Social

Services (also known as the New York City Human Resources Administration), their successors

or assigns, and all past and present officials, employees, representatives and agents of the New

York Human Resources Administration and the City of New York, the New York State Office of

Temporary and Disability Assistance and the State of New York from any and all liability for

claims, arising out of the events alleged in the complaint in said action, including claims for

attorney’s fees and costs for the period from the commencement of this action through the

Court’s so-ordering of this Stipulation and Order of Settlement.

THE UNDERSIGNED HAS READ THE FOREGOING RELEASE AND

FULLY UNDERSTANDS IT.

Name of Individual Plaintiff

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this {TEXT}~ Release this {TEXT}~

day of {TEXT}~, 200{TEXT}~.

STATE OF {TEXT}~,

COUNTY OF {TEXT}~

SS.:


- 2 -

On {TEXT}~ 2009 before me personally came {TEXT}~ to me known, and

known to me to be the individual(s) described in, and who executed the foregoing RELEASE,

and duly acknowledged to me that [she/he] executed the same.

________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC


Documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW …onlineresources.wnylc.net/pb/docs/PedersenSettlement.pdf · 08-CV-313 (NG) (VPP) WHEREAS, the plaintiffs, Brian Pedersen, Bernadette