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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

49 A.D.3d 460, 854 N.Y.2d 379

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 460 (Seemangal 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

Seemangal v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 49 A.D.3d 460, 854 N.Y.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Substantial evidence supports respondents’ findings that petitioner violated four Department of Social Services regulations covering the management and administration of group family day care homes (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10] [refusal to cooperate and allow access to the home]; 416.8 [c] [2] [use of an unauthorized caregiver]; 416.15 [a] [4] [exceeding authorized capacity]; 416.4 [f] [nonapproved second egress]) and that such violations placed the health, safety and welfare of the children in imminent danger (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]).

Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated by the issu[461]*461anee of the report by a person who did not preside at the hearing. The regulations specifically require that the decision after fair hearing be made by the Commissioner or his or her designee and that it be based “exclusively on the record of the hearing” (18 NYCRR 413.5 [m]; see Matter of Pluta v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 17 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 715 [2005]).

The determination to revoke petitioner’s license does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 232-234 [1974]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Substantial evidence supports respondents’ findings that petitioner violated four Department of Social Services regulations covering the management and administration of group family day care homes (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10] [refusal to cooperate and allow access to the home]; 416.8 [c] [2] [use of an unauthorized caregiver]; 416.15 [a] [4] [exceeding authorized capacity]; 416.4 [f] [nonapproved second egress]) and that such violations placed the health, safety and welfare of the children in imminent danger (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180 [1978]).

Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated by the issu[461]*461anee of the report by a person who did not preside at the hearing. The regulations specifically require that the decision after fair hearing be made by the Commissioner or his or her designee and that it be based “exclusively on the record of the hearing” (18 NYCRR 413.5 [m]; see Matter of Pluta v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 17 AD3d 1126, 1127 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 715 [2005]).

The determination to revoke petitioner’s license does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554 [2000]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 232-234 [1974]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 460, 854 N.Y.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seemangal-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack