A New Jersey woman who obtained Section 8 housing benefits for housing in Salamanca has had her fourth-degree welfare fraud conviction overturned on appeal by the Fourth Department Appellate Division in Rochester because the state Penal Law dealing with fourth-degree welfare fraud is poorly written and conflicts with itself.

Erica Davis was convicted in Cattaraugus County Court in August 2014 of fourth-degree welfare fraud and first-degree offering a false instrument for filing. Davis was charged based on her receipt of Section 8 housing subsidy from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development administered by the Salamanca Housing Authority as a division of the Salamanca Industrial Development Agency, not through the Cattaraugus County Social Services Department.

According to the court decision, Davis applied and and received benefits in Salamanca but never lived in Salamanca during the five months she received benefits.

“The People’s theory was that defendant applied for and obtained the benefits in Salamanca because of the relatively short waiting list for Section 8 benefits in that area, but she did not intend to move there and instead intended to transfer her Section 8 subsidy to New Jersey under the federal portability rules after the expiration of the requisite one-year waiting period,” the appellate decision states in its memorandum.

Davis’ attorney, Erin A. Kules of the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, argued that the conviction for welfare fraud was based on legally insufficient evidence because the Section 8 subsidy did not constitute public assistance benefits under Penal Law guidelines. The appellate court agreed with the contention because the definition of public assistance benefits in the Penal Law define benefits as those administered by a county social services department or social services district.

“According to defendant, the second element must be established regardless of which entity (federal government, state government, or government of any political subdivision within the state) supplies the funds. Inasmuch as the Section 8 subsidy was not administered through DSS, defendant contends that she did not receive public assistance benefits, and thus she could not have committed welfare fraud in the fourth degree,” the opinion states.

Cattaraugus County District Attorney Lori Pettit Rieman argued that the stipulation that benefits are only administered by a social services agency applies only to money provided by the political subdivision within the state. That idea was supported by another subdivision within the statute that defined a public benefit card as “any medical assistance card, food stamp assistance card, public assistance card, or any other identification, authorization card or electronic device issued by the state or a social services district . . . , which entitles a person to obtain public assistance benefits under a local, state, or federal program administered by the state, its political subdivisions, or social services districts.”

Because the two definitions within the law contradicted each other, the justices referred to the legislative history of the statute, which show it was enacted in 1995 primarily to combat Medicaid fraud, which are administered by the department of social services or a social services district.

Since both Davis’ and Rieman’s explanations were plausible, the court decided the case on the rule of lenity, which states the court adopt the interpretation of the statute that is more favorable to the defendant.

Rieman argued the welfare fraud charge should still fit Davis’ actions because the overall goal of the law is to combat fraud in social welfare programs and that Davis’ alleged actions harm taxpayers and those who truly need benefits.

“As shown by the facts of this case, when defendant fraudulently obtained Section 8 benefits, that resulted in residents of Salamanca waiting longer for those benefits,” the court wrote of Rieman’s contention. “The People’s contention, however, is one that should be directed to the Legislature.”