From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seemangal v. N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3176.

March 27, 2008.

Determination of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated May 17, 2006, after an evidentiary hearing, to suspend and revoke petitioner's license to operate a group family day care home, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis B. York, J.], entered January 26, 2007) dismissed, without costs.

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York (Carol Fischer of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.


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).

Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the issuance 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, lv denied 5 NY3d 715).

The determination to revoke petitioner's license does not shock the conscience ( see Matter of Featherstone v Franco, 95 NY2d 550, 554; 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).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them without merit.


Summaries of

Seemangal v. N.Y

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Seemangal v. N.Y

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DIWANTIE SEEMANGAL, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 27, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 460 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2748
854 N.Y.S.2d 379

Citing Cases

Clarke v. New York State Office of Children & Family Servs.

Determination of respondent, dated August 26, 2009, after a hearing, to suspend and revoke petitioner's…

Bauer v. N.Y. State Office of Children

This was within constitutional limits ( see FDIC v Mallen, 486 US 230, 243). Nor is there merit to…