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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

91 A.D.3d 489, 935 N.Y.2d 884

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 489 (Clarke v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services) 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

Clarke v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 91 A.D.3d 489, 935 N.Y.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner violated relevant regulations, including refusing to cooperate and allow access to the home (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10]), and by not having the proper number of caregivers present for each child under the age of two years old (18 NYCRR 416.8 [d] [2]), and that such violations placed the children’s health, safety and welfare in imminent danger (see Matter of Seemangal v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 49 AD3d 460 [2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The determination to revoke petitioner’s license does not shock our sense of fairness (see Seemangal at 461; cf. Matter of Grady v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 39 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner violated relevant regulations, including refusing to cooperate and allow access to the home (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10]), and by not having the proper number of caregivers present for each child under the age of two years old (18 NYCRR 416.8 [d] [2]), and that such violations placed the children’s health, safety and welfare in imminent danger (see Matter of Seemangal v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 49 AD3d 460 [2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The determination to revoke petitioner’s license does not shock our sense of fairness (see Seemangal at 461; cf. Matter of Grady v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 39 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 489, 935 N.Y.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack