Alexander v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alexander v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

50 A.D.3d 895, 854 N.Y.S.2d 665

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 15, 2008·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of David Molik, designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated June 21, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in group family day care homes, and revoked the petitioner’s license.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in group family day care homes is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]; Matter of Tender Loving Care Day Care, Inc. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 47 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2008]). Furthermore, the penalty of license revocation was neither arbitrary and capricious, nor disproportionate to the misconduct (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234 [1974]; Matter of Tender Loving Care Day Care, Inc. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 47 AD3d at 941). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of David Molik, designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated June 21, 2006, which, after a hearing, found that the petitioner violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in group family day care homes, and revoked the petitioner’s license.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in group family day care homes is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]; Matter of Tender Loving Care Day Care, Inc. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 47 AD3d 940, 940-941 [2008]). Furthermore, the penalty of license revocation was neither arbitrary and capricious, nor disproportionate to the misconduct (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234 [1974]; Matter of Tender Loving Care Day Care, Inc. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 47 AD3d at 941). Skelos, J.P., Covello, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Alexander v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 50 A.D.3d 895, 854 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

50 A.D.3d 895 (Alexander v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related