Adams v. Novello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adams v. Novello

283 A.D.2d 176, 724 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 176 (Adams v. Novello) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Novello, 283 A.D.2d 176, 724 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent State Department of Health, dated October 13, 1999, that petitioner, a certified nurse’s aide, neglected a nursing home resident, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the [177]*177proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered on or about April 4, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The determination of neglect within the meaning of 10 NYCRR 81.1 (c) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Carrera v Sobol, 163 AD2d 706, 708, affd 77 NY2d 931; Matter of Kirschner v Mills, 274 AD2d 786, 789), in particular, the testimony of three witnesses that petitioner admitted that he failed to provide the resident with appropriate care. No basis exists to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of credibility with respect to this testimony (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge applied an incorrect substantial evidence, rather than the correct preponderance of the evidence, standard. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Determination of respondent State Department of Health, dated October 13, 1999, that petitioner, a certified nurse’s aide, neglected a nursing home resident, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the [177]*177proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered on or about April 4, 2000), dismissed, without costs.

The determination of neglect within the meaning of 10 NYCRR 81.1 (c) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Carrera v Sobol, 163 AD2d 706, 708, affd 77 NY2d 931; Matter of Kirschner v Mills, 274 AD2d 786, 789), in particular, the testimony of three witnesses that petitioner admitted that he failed to provide the resident with appropriate care. No basis exists to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of credibility with respect to this testimony (see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444). We have considered and rejected petitioner’s argument that the Administrative Law Judge applied an incorrect substantial evidence, rather than the correct preponderance of the evidence, standard. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 176, 724 N.Y.S.2d 591, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-novello-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack