## Facts

- New York City operated a “bank-match” program in which banks reported account balances associated with public assistance recipients.
- City rules treated a recipient as ineligible if the recipient had access to a bank account exceeding $1,000.
- When a match suggested an excess “asset,” the City used a “Type A” termination process that sent a form notice stating benefits were terminated due to an “asset” over the allowable limit.
- The Type A notice did not specify that the alleged asset was a bank account or provide identifying account information.
- Melba Henry received a Type A notice after a matched account showed a balance of about $1,042; the notice’s generic “asset” description led her not to contest the bank-account premise.
- Henry’s benefits were terminated, leaving her and her three children without income for roughly six weeks; she borrowed money to meet basic needs.
- Henry later showed the matched account belonged to a neighbor and that she lacked actual access to the funds, despite her name appearing on the account.
- During litigation, the City revised the notice to state explicitly that the triggering asset was a bank account over $1,000.

## Issues

1. Whether a pre-termination notice stating only that benefits were terminated due to an “asset” exceeding the limit, without identifying the bank-account basis, satisfied constitutional due process and applicable welfare notice regulations.
2. Whether the district court properly ordered injunctive relief requiring (a) enhanced procedures in certain bank-match cases to permit a pre-termination opportunity to refute the charge and (b) notice language informing recipients how to obtain specific account information.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the determination that the original Type A notice was legally inadequate and violated due process and governing notice regulations.
- The court held that notice must disclose the basis for termination with enough specificity to allow a recipient to understand the charge and prepare a response; here, it required identifying that the “asset” was a bank account over the limit.
- The court largely upheld remedial orders requiring more informative notices and additional procedural protections in situations where bank-match information was ambiguous, while refining aspects of the remedy.

## Legal Principles

- Due process in subsistence-benefit terminations requires timely, adequate notice that states the reasons for adverse action with sufficient detail for a recipient to prepare a meaningful defense.
- A notice that uses only a generic label (e.g., “asset” over a limit) is insufficient when the government’s action rests on a specific, contestable factual premise (e.g., access to a particular bank account).
- Notice obligations under welfare regulations, like constitutional due process, require communication of the critical factual basis for the proposed action in a way a recipient can understand and dispute.
- Where government data is incomplete or ambiguous as to whether funds are actually available to the recipient (such as uncertainty about ownership or control of a matched account), additional pre-termination procedures may be required to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation.
- Effective notice may require either providing sufficient identifying information about the alleged account or informing the recipient of a clear method to request the details needed to locate the account and rebut the allegation.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that terminating public assistance based on bank-match information requires notice that identifies the bank-account basis of the alleged excess asset with enough specificity to permit a meaningful challenge, and it approved substantial injunctive relief to ensure recipients can obtain the information and procedures needed to contest erroneous terminations.


Henry v. Gross, 803 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1986)