National Legal and Policy Center -- Legal Services Accountability Project
 
LSAP REPORT
 
Issue # 98 -- May 16, 2002


Legal Services in New York: Fighting Efforts to Protect Abused Child & Defending Meritless Unemployment Claims
 

Legal Aid for Broome & Chenango, Inc. Fights to Keep Child in Sexually Abusive Home

In an astonishing case decided April 4, 2002, a LSC grantee program used federal tax dollars to frustrate efforts by Child Protective Services to help a sexually abused child.  The case began on April 3, 2000, when the mother of two minor children (name of mother and children suppressed by court order) was summoned to her older daughter’s school, and informed by a state police investigator and a Child Protective Services worker that her daughter had that day reported several instances of sexual abuse by her stepfather.  According to witnesses, the mother gave her child a “look that could kill” and refused to believe the allegations.  Two days later, the state police obtained a written and videotaped confession from the stepfather that affirmed the girl’s allegations.  The mother read the typed confession, but refused to leave her husband or execute a release permitting disclosure of the results of her abused daughter’s physical examination.  On April 10, the Family Court of Broome County signed a removal order and called for a ‘fact-finding hearing’ on April 12, 2000.  The mother did not testify at the hearing.  Legal Aid for Broome & Chenango, Inc., a federally-funded grantee of the Legal Services Corporation, defended the mother against the efforts of the Broome County Family Court to protect her children.  Last month, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York issued a ruling that upheld the Family Court of Broome County, and strongly condemned the mother’s failure to “exercise a minimum degree of care to protect her daughters” and to be a “supportive parent to her abused daughter even when faced with overwhelming, uncontroverted evidence of the abuse.”
See: In The Matter of Amanda "RR", No. 88151, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3425, at *1 (N.Y. App. Div. Apr. 4, 2002)

LSC Grantee Wages Meritless Suit for Unemployment Benefits For Worker That Voluntarily Quit Job

Angel L. Chevres was a field manager for a copy service in New York.  After four months on the job, he demanded new terms for his employment, specifically either a company vehicle or a higher reimbursement amount for travel expenses.  When the employer refused, Chevres offered his resignation with two weeks’ notice.  The employer told Chevres he could leave immediately.  Chevres applied for unemployment benefits, but was denied, since he had left his job voluntarily.  The Unemployment Insurance Board upheld the denial in January 2001, and Chevres went to court with the Nassau/Suffolk Law Services Committee, Inc. at his side.  On September 13, 2001, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upheld the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, finding that Chevres “voluntarily left his employment for personal and noncompelling reasons” and that his unemployment claims are “without merit.”
See: Chevres v. Commissioner of Labor, 286 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
 
LSC Grantee Ignores Statutory Deadline in Appealing Unemployment Benefits Ruling
 
In a case decided July 12, 2001, the Southern Tier Legal Services was dealt an embarrassing defeat by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.  Its client, Alfred C. Bennitt, was fired from his job in 1999, and sought unemployment benefits.  His application was denied, since his employment had been terminated for “misconduct.”  Bennitt received this notification September 9, 1999, but did not request a hearing until November 29, 1999, well past the 30-day statutory deadline.  The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled on April 11, 2000 that the claimant’s request for a hearing was “untimely.”  With help from Southern Tier Legal Services, Bennitt went to court.  In a brief half-page opinion, the New York Supreme Court stated simply: “[W]e find no reason to disturb the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s request for a hearing was untimely.”  The court ruled that Bennitt’s appeal (and the LSC grantee’s case) was “without merit.”
See: Bennitt v. Commissioner of Labor, 285 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
 
 
 


Email NLPC

LSAP Report Issue Index

Legal Services Accountability Project

NLPC Home Page