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

104 A.D.3d 1199, 960 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2013 NY Slip Op 1680, 2013 WL 1032577, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D.3d 1199 (Crandall 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
Crandall v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 104 A.D.3d 1199, 960 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2013 NY Slip Op 1680, 2013 WL 1032577, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County [Thomas G. Leone, A.J.], entered August 23, 2012) to review a determination of respondent. The determination denied the request of petitioner to amend an indicated report.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination denying his request to amend an indicated report of maltreatment to provide instead that the report was unfounded (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [a] [v]; [c] [ii]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that the hearsay evidence of maltreatment constituted substantial evidence supporting the determination (see Matter of Jeannette LL. v Johnson, 2 AD3d 1261, 1263-1264 [2003]). Although petitioner’s account of the events conflicted with the evidence presented by respondent, “it is not within this Court’s discretion to weigh conflicting testimony or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative finder of fact” (Matter of Ribya BB. v Wing, 243 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1997]). Present— Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.

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

Related

PITTS, TYRONE v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
ARBOGAST, JOY v. NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN & FAMILY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.3d 1199, 960 N.Y.S.2d 673, 2013 NY Slip Op 1680, 2013 WL 1032577, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crandall-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2013.