Opinion
May 6, 1993
Appeal from the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Perkinson, J.).
Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent was a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) due to her alleged absences from school. Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the petition and, following a dispositional hearing, was placed on probation for one year. Respondent now appeals, contending that the petition was jurisdictionally defective because it was based solely upon hearsay.
We agree that a noncertified, unauthenticated copy of a form purporting to be respondent's attendance record does not qualify as a business record within the meaning of CPLR 4518 (a) (see, Matter of Jodel KK., 189 A.D.2d 63, 64; see also, Matter of Board of Educ. v State Educ. Dept., 135 A.D.2d 903, 905; Matter of George C., 91 Misc.2d 875, 879), and the petition was therefore based solely upon hearsay. This Court has previously held, however, that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that a PINS petition brought under Family Court Act article 7 set forth nonhearsay allegations (Matter of Jodel KK., supra; see, Matter of Guy II., 192 A.D.2d 770; Matter of Marangel LL., 192 A.D.2d 771; see also, Matter of Keith H., 188 A.D.2d 81). Accordingly, the petition here was not jurisdictionally defective and Family Court's order adjudicating respondent a PINS should therefore be affirmed.
Weiss, P.J., Levine and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.