Opinion
02-03-2017
In the Matter of Danielle STEAD, Petitioner, v. Linda JOYCE, Director, New York State Central Register for Child Abuse and Maltreatment Register, as part of Division of Child Welfare and Community Services, and Sheila Poole, Acting Commissioner, New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Respondents.
Matthew A. Albert, Buffalo, for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of Counsel), for Respondents.
Matthew A. Albert, Buffalo, for Petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (William E. Storrs of Counsel), for Respondents.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination made after a fair hearing that, inter alia, denied her request to amend an indicated report of maltreatment to an unfounded report and to seal it (see Social Services Law § 422[8][a][v] ; [c][ii] ).
We reject petitioner's contention that the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) failed to sustain its burden at the fair hearing of establishing that petitioner committed an act of maltreatment and that such maltreatment was relevant and reasonably related to childcare employment. "It is well established that our review is limited to whether the determination to deny the request to amend and seal the [indicated] report is supported by substantial evidence in the record" (Matter of Kordasiewicz v. Erie County Dept. of Social Servs., 119 A.D.3d 1425, 1426, 990 N.Y.S.2d 750 ; see Matter of Dawn M. v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 138 A.D.3d 1492, 1493, 30 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; Matter of Pitts v. New York State
Off. of Children & Family Servs., 128 A.D.3d 1394, 1395, 7 N.Y.S.3d 795 ). Substantial evidence is " ‘such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ " (Kordasiewicz, 119 A.D.3d at 1426, 990 N.Y.S.2d 750, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ; see Matter of Hattie G. v. Monroe County Dept. of Social Servs., Children's Servs. Unit, 48 A.D.3d 1292, 1293, 851 N.Y.S.2d 324 ). "To establish maltreatment, the agency was required to show by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the physical, mental or emotional condition of the child had been impaired or was in imminent danger of becoming impaired because of a failure by petitioner to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing the child with appropriate supervision or guardianship" (Matter of Gerald HH. v. Carrion, 130 A.D.3d 1174, 1175, 14 N.Y.S.3d 185 ; see Social Services Law § 412[2][a] ; Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i][B] ; 18 NYCRR 432.1 [b][1][ii]; Matter of Brian M. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 98 A.D.3d 743, 743, 951 N.Y.S.2d 158 ).
The evidence at the hearing established that petitioner took several children to eat lunch at a busy fast-food restaurant that had a play area, and that one of those children left the play area and remained out of petitioner's sight for several minutes. The evidence, including the video recording of the incident, establishes that petitioner was unaware that the child had wandered away until a restaurant employee returned the child to her. Thus, the Administrative Law Judge's "determination that [OCFS] established by a fair preponderance of the evidence at the fair hearing that petitioner maltreated the subject child[ ] and that such maltreatment was relevant and reasonably related to childcare employment is supported by substantial evidence" (Dawn M., 138 A.D.3d at 1494, 30 N.Y.S.3d 471 ; see generally Matter of Cheryl Z. v. Carrion, 119 A.D.3d 1109, 1111, 990 N.Y.S.2d 138 ; Matter of Archer v. Carrion, 117 A.D.3d 733, 734–735, 985 N.Y.S.2d 620 ; Matter of Ojofeitimi v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 89 A.D.3d 854, 855, 932 N.Y.S.2d 361 ; Matter of Bullock v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs., 248 A.D.2d 380, 382, 669 N.Y.S.2d 618 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.