Opinion
2014-10-8
In the Matter of TIMOTHY G. (Anonymous), et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., respondents.
Janet A. Gandolfo, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for petitioners. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Janet A. Gandolfo, Sleepy Hollow, N.Y., for petitioners. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated January 9, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioners' application to amend and seal an indicated report maintained by the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
ADJUDGED that the petition is granted, on the law, with costs, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the respondent to amend the indicated report to an unfounded report and to seal the amended report.
“At an administrative hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Marie A.P. v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 100 A.D.3d 1003, 1003–1004, 955 N.Y.S.2d 159). Our review of the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services that the petitioners maltreated the subject child is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Johnson v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 118 A.D.3d 884, 988 N.Y.S.2d 232; Matter of Marie A.P. v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 100 A.D.3d at 1004, 955 N.Y.S.2d 159). “Substantial evidence means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (Matter of Marie A.P. v. Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs., 100 A.D.3d at 1004, 955 N.Y.S.2d 159 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
The determination that the petitioners maltreated the subject child was not supported by substantial evidence ( see id.). The petitioners' conduct with respect to the subject child did not, under the circumstances here, constitute maltreatment ( see Matter of Brian M. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 98 A.D.3d 743, 951 N.Y.S.2d 158; Matter of M.C. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 93 A.D.3d 665, 939 N.Y.S.2d 702). MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.