As reported in our July 2025 issue, the Court of Appeals agreed to hear Andersen v. Hein, ____ N.E.3d_____ (2026), a case addressing whether the value of work performed in a work experience program must be credited against interim assistance recovery. The Court has now issued its decision. On May 26, 2026, the New York State Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that the value of work performed by certain Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applicants as a condition of receiving Safety Net Assistance (SNA) does not reduce the amount local districts may recover through the interim assistance recovery (IAR) process.
Single adults without dependents who have little to no income often receive SNA through their local social services district while waiting for a decision on their SSI application from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Generally, receipt of SNA is conditioned on the recipient participating in work activities. However, if an SNA applicant “reasonably appears” eligible for SSI, the district will require the applicant to apply for SSI as a condition of eligibility for SNA. These applicants are exempt from the work requirements. See 06 ADM-06, p.2. However, not all applicants who meet SSI eligibility requirements reasonably appear disabled when they apply for SNA. These applicants may be required to work while their SSI applications are pending. The recent court decision impacts this group of applicants.
The district requires the applicant to agree to pay back SNA benefits provided if the SSA determines they were eligible for SSI during the time they received these benefits. SNA benefits the applicant received during this period of retroactive SSI eligibility are known as “interim assistance.” If the SSI applicant is found eligible for SSI, the local district is reimbursed for SNA the applicant received during this interim period. This process is called interim assistance recovery (IAR).
The Court of Appeals decision addresses the issue of how interim assistance should be calculated if the SSI applicant has been required to work during the IAR recovery period. To illustrate the issue, imagine two SSI applicants with disabilities are receiving SNA while their disability claims are pending, but only one is found to “reasonably appear” disabled and exempted from participating in a work experience program (WEP). Because the non-exempt’s applicant’s disability was either hidden, invisible, or not readily apparent, she is not found exempt. If both are later awarded retroactive SSI and the district recovers interim assistance, must the district credit the value of the second applicant’s work against that recovery?
In Andersen, the Court of Appeals answered this question in the negative. The Andersen decision is distinguished from Carver v. State of New York, 26 N.Y.3d 272, 275 (2015) which held that WEP participants were employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); the minimum wage value of WEP participation had to be applied as a credit when SNA debt was recovered by intercepting the plaintiff’s lottery winnings. This decision was not overturned in Andersen. Instead, the Court did not apply the FLSA analysis of Carver for the plaintiffs in Andersen.
Although the Court of Appeals in Andersen held that SSI applicants cannot receive minimum wage credit for their work during the interim period, applicants may find relief in federal court. While the Court in Andersen held that SSI applicants would be “double dipping” if they received the minimum wage value of their work, in Elwell v. Weiss, 2007 WL 2994308 (W.D.N.Y., 2007), the Western District of New York expressly rejected such a concept, holding that when SNA benefits are conditioned on work, these benefits are converted to wages the applicant earned; recovering these wages would be a deprivation of minimum wage compensation protected under FLSA.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs in Andersen have filed a motion to reargue with the Court of Appeals. The Plaintiffs in Andersen are represented by the Empire Justice Center and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. Please contact Susan Antos at santos@empirejustice.org for more information including copies of any of the decisions, pleadings, and related documents.
