Esteva v. New York State Central Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esteva v. New York State Central Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment

82 A.D.3d 978, 919 N.Y.2d 93

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 978 (Esteva v. New York State Central Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment) 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

Esteva v. New York State Central Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 A.D.3d 978, 919 N.Y.2d 93 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[979]*979At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059 [2009]). “It is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Bullock v State of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 380, 382 [1998]).

Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Valentine v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d 249, 249-250 [2007]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; see Matter of Lynnann P. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 28 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]).

Here, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services determined that it was established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired, or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, as a result of the petitioner’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing proper supervision or guardianship (see Social Services Law § 412 [2] [a] [i]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 18 NYCRR 432.1 [b] [1]; Matter of Benjamin v Carrion, 79 AD3d 744 [2010]; Matter of Barnes v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 67 AD3d 787, 788 [2009]). That determination is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this CPLR article 78 proceeding must be dismissed on the merits. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[979]*979At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059 [2009]). “It is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Bullock v State of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 380, 382 [1998]).

Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Valentine v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d 249, 249-250 [2007]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; see Matter of Lynnann P. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 28 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]).

Here, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services determined that it was established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject child’s physical, mental, or emotional condition has been impaired, or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired, as a result of the petitioner’s failure to exercise a minimum degree of care in providing proper supervision or guardianship (see Social Services Law § 412 [2] [a] [i]; Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; 18 NYCRR 432.1 [b] [1]; Matter of Benjamin v Carrion, 79 AD3d 744 [2010]; Matter of Barnes v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 67 AD3d 787, 788 [2009]). That determination is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this CPLR article 78 proceeding must be dismissed on the merits. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 978, 919 N.Y.2d 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esteva-v-new-york-state-central-register-of-child-abuse-maltreatment-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack