Opinion
June 11, 1998
Upon petitioner's previous request to review a determination denying expungment of his name from the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment ( see, Matter of Nils TT. v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 221 A.D.2d 874, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 812), we remitted the matter to respondent for a determination consistent with Matter of Lee TT. v. Dowling ( 211 A.D.2d 46, affd 87 N.Y.2d 699), utilizing the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.
Upon remittal, it was determined that expungment would be denied since the two reports concerning petitioner's maltreatment of his two daughters were supported by this evidentiary standard. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that hearsay evidence alone cannot constitute the requisite "substantial evidence" to support that determination. We disagree.
Hearsay is admissible in expungment hearings and, "`if sufficiently relevant and probative, may constitute substantial evidence to support the underlying determination'" ( Matter of Ribya BB. v. Wing, 243 A.D.2d 1013, 1014, quoting Matter of Robert OO. v. Dowling, 217 A.D.2d 785, 786). To the extent that petitioner raises the question of substantial evidence, we find sufficient evidence throughout this record supporting the determination rendered ( see; People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139).
As to petitioner's contention that he should have been afforded a new hearing before a different Administrative Law Judge, again we disagree. We find no infirmity in the original hearing to require anything other than a new determination, upon the existing record, utilizing the proper standard of review ( see, Matter of Lee TT. v. Wing, 248 A.D.2d 785). Accordingly, respondent's determination is confirmed.
Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs and petition dismissed.