Opinion
2019-11930 Index No. 509610/19
12-20-2023
In the Matter of Angelica HILL, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE JUSTICE CENTER FOR the PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, et al., respondents.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Heidi L. Cain of counsel), for petitioner. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Linda Fang, and Anagha Sundararajan of counsel), for respondents.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Heidi L. Cain of counsel), for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Anisha S. Dasgupta, Linda Fang, and Anagha Sundararajan of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BARRY E. WARHIT, LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Elizabeth M. Devane, Administrative Law Judge of the Administrative Hearings Unit of the State of New York Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs, dated December 31, 2018. The determination adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of an Administrative Law Judge dated December 17, 2018, made after a hearing, that the petitioner committed category one physical abuse as defined by Social Services Law § 493(4)(a) and category two neglect as defined by Social Services Law § 493(4)(b), and denied the petitioner's request that a substantiated report of abuse and neglect dated March 16, 2017, be amended and sealed.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The petitioner was a program specialist employed by Services for the Underserved at a facility that is certified by the Office of People with Developmental Disabilities. In a report of substantiated finding dated March 16, 2017, the State of New York Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs (hereinafter the Justice Center) advised the petitioner that allegations that she had engaged in conduct that constituted category one physical abuse (see Social Services Law § 493[4][a] ) and category two neglect (see id. § 493[4][b] ) had been substantiated. The allegations were that on June 11, 2016, during a return trip to the facility from a community excursion, the petitioner struck a service recipient with a shovel and/or sprayed disinfectant into his eyes while the petitioner was attempting to restrain the service recipient, who had become physically violent, and thereafter failed to provide adequate medical care to the service recipient.
The petitioner requested an amendment of the substantiated report, seeking to have the designations changed to unsubstantiated and the matter sealed (see id. § 494). The petitioner's request was denied and the matter was referred for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (see id.; 14 NYCRR 700.6 ).
After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge found that the Justice Center proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the petitioner committed an act of category one abuse and an act of category two neglect. In a final determination dated August 31, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision was adopted in its entirety and the petitioner's request to amend and seal the substantiated report was denied by Elizabeth M. Devane, an Administrative Law Judge of the Administrative Hearings Unit, who was designated by the Executive Director of the Justice Center to make such decisions. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding to review that determination. By order dated September 25, 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g).
This Court's review of the determination of the Justice Center that the report of category one abuse and category two neglect was substantiated is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence (see id. § 7803 [4]; Matter of Kennedy v. State of New York Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 204 A.D.3d 670, 671, 163 N.Y.S.3d 834 ; Matter of O'Grady v. Kiyonaga, 172 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 102 N.Y.S.3d 636 ). "Substantial evidence for the purpose of CPLR 7803(4) consists of ‘such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ " ( Matter of Donnelly v. State of N.Y. Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 189 A.D.3d 1039, 1042, 137 N.Y.S.3d 62, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 ).
Here, the determination of the Justice Center was based on substantial evidence. The hearing evidence showed that the petitioner committed physical abuse and neglect of a service recipient by striking the service recipient with a shovel during the return trip to the facility from a community excursion, and, upon return to the facility, failing to report that the service recipient had suffered physical injuries, including the inability to open his eyes after disinfectant had been sprayed into them. "Hearsay evidence, such as the testimony of the [investigator in this case who interviewed the facility staff and the service recipient], can be the basis of an administrative determination" ( Matter of Khan v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 215 A.D.3d 844, 844–845, 187 N.Y.S.3d 749 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit or are not properly before this Court, as they were not raised in the administrative hearing (see id. at 845, 187 N.Y.S.3d 749 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, WARHIT and LOVE, JJ., concur.