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

85 A.D.3d 1603, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 85 A.D.3d 1603 (Garzon 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
Garzon v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 85 A.D.3d 1603, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

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, Niagara County [Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.], entered January 10, 2011) to review a determination of respondents. The determination found, inter alia, that petitioner’s maltreatment of her child is reasonably related to her employment in child care.

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 following a fair hearing finding that the indicated report of maltreatment against her is reasonably related to her .employment in child [1604]*1604care or her provision of foster or adoptive care (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [c] [ii]). We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Castilloux v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 AD3d 1061 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 702 [2005]; see also Matter of Richard R. v Carrion, 67 AD3d 915 [2009]; Matter of Mary P. v Helfer, 17 AD3d 1013 [2005], amended on rearg 20 AD3d 943 [2005]). The evidence presented at the hearing established that petitioner hit her 12-year-old child in the leg, head and arm and then kicked the passenger door of a vehicle while the child was sitting in the passenger seat. Petitioner testified at the hearing that she was acting in self-defense, and she therefore failed to take responsibility for her actions or appreciate the seriousness of the incident. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, we conclude that there is no reason to disturb the finding that petitioner’s act of maltreatment is relevant and reasonably related to, inter alia, her employment in child care. Present— Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Bindley and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Blair v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
2025 NY Slip Op 07145 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Vega v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
207 A.D.3d 1179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Leeper v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
2018 NY Slip Op 6359 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Velez v. New York State Off. of Children
2018 NY Slip Op 349 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
EMERSON, KHALID v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017
Emerson v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
148 A.D.3d 1627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 A.D.3d 1603, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garzon-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2011.