Opinion
2016–02041 Index No. 12564/15
04-25-2018
In the Matter of Josephine FAPONNLE, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., respondents.
Gail M. Blasie, Garden City, NY, for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondents.
Gail M. Blasie, Garden City, NY, for petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Anisha S. Dasgupta and Matthew W. Grieco of counsel), for respondents.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the designee of the respondent Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services, dated March 20, 2015, which, after a hearing, affirmed a prior determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated November 5, 2014, to revoke the petitioner's license to operate a group family day care home.
ADJUDGED that the determination dated March 20, 2015, is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking review of the determination of the designee of the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS), which affirmed a prior determination of OCFS to revoke the petitioner's license to operate a group family day care home.
In a proceeding of this nature, this Court must determine whether the determination is, on the entire record, supported by substantial evidence (see CPLR 7803[4] ; Matter of Occhiogrosso v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 72 A.D.3d 1092, 1092, 898 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter ofBauer v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., Bur. of Early Childhood Servs., 55 A.D.3d 421, 422, 866 N.Y.S.2d 626 ).
Here, the determination of the designee of the Acting Commissioner of OCFS is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Liddell v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 117 A.D.3d 742, 743, 984 N.Y.S.2d 874 ; Matter of Simpson v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 94 A.D.3d 1008, 1008, 942 N.Y.S.2d 374 ). Further, the penalty imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Simpson v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 94 A.D.3d at 1009, 942 N.Y.S.2d 374 ; Matter of Occhiogrosso v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 72 A.D.3d at 1092, 898 N.Y.S.2d 874 ). Accordingly, the determination should be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.