Support pours in for homeless man stung by honesty
HACKENSACK, N.J. — Offers of support have been pouring in from around the nation for a formerly homeless New Jersey man whose good deed proved costly.
James Brady of Hackensack was notified that his government benefits were being suspended because he failed to report as income the $850 he had found on a sidewalk and turned over to police.
Brady, who was homeless when he found the money on a sidewalk in April upon leaving a shelter, turned the cash over to police. He was allowed to keep it six months later because no one claimed it during a mandated waiting period.
But the Hackensack Human Services Department denied him General Assistance and Medicaid benefits through Dec. 31 because he failed to report the cash as new income.
The 59-year-old Brady is a former photographer and market data analyst who has suffered from depression since losing his job a decade ago, according to The Record of Woodland Park.
Brady told The Record that he hadn't realized he was required to report the money. Formerly homeless, he had recently found housing and was seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist and taking medication but was unsure he'd be able to afford continuing care once his benefits were cut off.
Offers of support for Brady have been pouring in from readers, the newspaper said.
Bergen County's United Way has set up an account specifically for Brady through its Compassion Fund.
The chapter's head, Tom Toronto, said the offers of help stem from a feeling that Brady did a good deed when it would have been easier not to.
“Here's a fellow who behaved admirably, who clearly could have used the money himself, but he showed a tremendous amount of pride and honesty,” Toronto said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.