A new deal for the disabled

New York State promised thousands of mentally ill people stuck in sometimes squalid, sometimes unsafe institutions known as adult homes a chance for an independent life. Gov. Cuomo must not now let that chance slip away in a storm of lawyers’ motions and defensive maneuvers. Neither should bench bulldog Brooklyn Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis, entrusted with their fate.

Four years ago, settling a lawsuit brought by the federal government that built on advocates’ 2003 class action case, the state agreed that by this July, it would screen at least 2,500 of the more than 4,000 eligible, preparing to move out those who are ready into apartments with social services.

With just three months left, a scant 500 have moved and hundreds await evaluation, following absurd delays. And that’s the part that’s going pretty well.

The real mess, and threat to a better future for adult home residents who deserve better options, is a legal quagmire partly of the state’s making.

Predictably, adult home operators sued to block Department of Health rules that, in anticipation of the settlement, limited how many mentally ill people could remain in the institutions. Stunningly, the state agreed to suspend its own regulations — to head off the risk of a costly court order, goes the reasoning — triggering a time bomb in the federal settlement.

In coming weeks, the state and the advocates for the mentally ill must reach agreement on new terms, or start all over again at a fresh trial — while residents who want to move out languish.

While speeding relocation, all must also reckon with the reality that fully half of adult home residents asked say they’re happy to stay just where they are, while some who move out — including the plaintiff in the case suspending the state rules — want to move back in and currently can’t.

That includes Garaufis, whose past overreach righting Fire Department hiring discrimination rippled unhelpful if unintended consequences for many applicants.

Yes, the adult home operators have an economic interest at play, and may well be persuading residents to stay who may be better off elsewhere. Nonetheless: The driving principle for adult home residents must be freedom of choice. So says the law, and so indicate a surprising many of the clients in whose name the attorneys fight.