Mangus v. Niagara County Department of Social Services

68 A.D.3d 1774, 893 N.Y.2d 410
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1774 (Mangus v. Niagara County Department of Social 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
Mangus v. Niagara County Department of Social Services, 68 A.D.3d 1774, 893 N.Y.2d 410 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Memorandum: Petitioner contends that the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (respondent) erred in refusing to amend to unfounded an indicated report of child maltreatment with respect to her son, maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, and to seal that amended report. We reject that contention. “ ‘At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child . . . maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence’ ” (Matter of Saporito v Carrion, 66 AD3d 912, 912 [2009]). “ ‘Our review ... is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record on the petitioner!’s] application for expungement’ ” (id.; see Matter of Hattie G. v Monroe County Dept. of Social Servs., [1775]*1775Children’s Servs. Unit, 48 AD3d 1292, 1293 [2008]). We conclude on the record before us that respondent’s determination that respondent Niagara County Department of Social Services established by a fair preponderance of the evidence at the fair hearing that petitioner maltreated the subject child is supported by substantial evidence (see Hattie G., 48 AD3d at 1293; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). Contrary to the further contention of petitioner, who proceeded pro se at the fair hearing, she was not entitled to assigned counsel at the hearing and thus her contention with respect to the denial of due process based on the lack of representation lacks merit (see generally Matter of Brown v Lavine, 37 NY2d 317 [1975]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.E, Smith, Fahey and Garni, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Jeter v. Poole
2024 NY Slip Op 05868 (New York Court of Appeals, 2024)
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 Searles v. Poole
167 N.Y.S.3d 888 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Matter of Warren v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, Off. of Children & Family Servs.
2018 NY Slip Op 6361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
M., DAWN v. NEW YORK STATE CENTRAL REGISTER OF, CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATM
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Dawn M. v. New York State Central Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment
138 A.D.3d 1492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
PITTS, TYRONE v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Pitts v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
128 A.D.3d 1394 (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
KORDASIEWICZ, LYNN v. ERIE COUNTY D.S.S.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Kordasiewicz v. Erie County Department of Social Services
119 A.D.3d 1425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Arbogast v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
119 A.D.3d 1454 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MILTON, HAROLD v. JOYCE, LINDA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Milton v. Joyce
109 A.D.3d 1138 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
FECHTER, ERIC v. NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY S
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Fechter v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
107 A.D.3d 1583 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
REYNOLDS, MEREDITH v. NYS OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY S
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Reynolds v. New York State Office of Children
101 A.D.3d 1738 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Susan XX. v. Tioga County Department of Social Services
74 A.D.3d 1543 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 A.D.3d 1774, 893 N.Y.2d 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangus-v-niagara-county-department-of-social-services-nyappdiv-2009.