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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

70 A.D.3d 706, 892 N.Y.S.2d 890

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 706 (Singleton 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

Singleton v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services, 70 A.D.3d 706, 892 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 [707]*707to review a determination of John Franklin Udochi, designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated February 8, 2007, which, after a hearing, affirmed a prior determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to suspend and revoke the petitioner’s licenses to operate two group family day care homes.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in her two group family day care homes is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d 775, 776 [2004]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234 [1974]; Matter of Smith v Carter, 61 AD3d 982 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 [707]*707to review a determination of John Franklin Udochi, designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated February 8, 2007, which, after a hearing, affirmed a prior determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to suspend and revoke the petitioner’s licenses to operate two group family day care homes.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that she violated certain regulations concerning the supervision of children in her two group family day care homes is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Furthermore, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness, thus constituting an abuse of discretion as a matter of law (see Matter of Kreisler v New York City Tr. Auth., 2 NY3d 775, 776 [2004]; see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 234 [1974]; Matter of Smith v Carter, 61 AD3d 982 [2009]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 706, 892 N.Y.S.2d 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-new-york-state-office-of-children-family-services-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack