Matter of Gargano v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gargano v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

133 A.D.3d 556, 19 N.Y.S.3d 418

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

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

Docket16234 100441/14

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 A.D.3d 556 (Matter of Gargano v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.) 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

Matter of Gargano v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 133 A.D.3d 556, 19 N.Y.S.3d 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent State of New York Office of Children and Family Services (CFS), dated December 16, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s request that respondent New York City Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS) report against him for maltreatment of his children be sealed and amended from “indicated” to “unfounded,” unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Carol E. Huff, J.], entered Oct. 10, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

CFS’ determination that ACS proved by a fair preponderance *557 of the evidence that petitioner had maltreated his children is supported by substantial evidence, including NYPD domestic violence incident reports and the testimony and progress notes of an ACS caseworker (see Matter of Parker v Carrion, 90 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2011]). The evidence shows that petitioner committed acts of domestic violence against one child and against the children’s mother in the children’s presence, thereby causing imminent or actual harm to the children’s physical and emotional health (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371-372 [2004]; see also Matter of Jeaniya W. [Jean W.], 96 AD3d 622, 623 [1st Dept 2012]). There is no basis to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility determinations, as they are supported by the evidence (see Matter of Jeaniya, 96 AD3d at 623; see also Matter of Baker v Koehler, 166 AD2d 240, 240-241 [1st Dept 1990]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent State of New York Office of Children and Family Services (CFS), dated December 16, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner’s request that respondent New York City Administration for Children’s Services’ (ACS) report against him for maltreatment of his children be sealed and amended from “indicated” to “unfounded,” unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Carol E. Huff, J.], entered Oct. 10, 2014), dismissed, without costs.

CFS’ determination that ACS proved by a fair preponderance *557 of the evidence that petitioner had maltreated his children is supported by substantial evidence, including NYPD domestic violence incident reports and the testimony and progress notes of an ACS caseworker (see Matter of Parker v Carrion, 90 AD3d 512, 512 [1st Dept 2011]). The evidence shows that petitioner committed acts of domestic violence against one child and against the children’s mother in the children’s presence, thereby causing imminent or actual harm to the children’s physical and emotional health (see Nicholson v Scoppetta, 3 NY3d 357, 371-372 [2004]; see also Matter of Jeaniya W. [Jean W.], 96 AD3d 622, 623 [1st Dept 2012]). There is no basis to disturb the Administrative Law Judge’s credibility determinations, as they are supported by the evidence (see Matter of Jeaniya, 96 AD3d at 623; see also Matter of Baker v Koehler, 166 AD2d 240, 240-241 [1st Dept 1990]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 556, 19 N.Y.S.3d 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gargano-v-new-york-state-off-of-children-family-servs-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack