Opinion
2017–05786 Index 348/17
09-25-2019
In the Matter of Hannah ZARZAR, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Respondents.
Hannah Zarzar, Brooklyn, NY, petitioner pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
Hannah Zarzar, Brooklyn, NY, petitioner pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Steven C. Wu and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondents.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & JUDGMENT Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the designee of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated September 26, 2016, which, after a hearing, affirmed a prior determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated March 25, 2016, revoking the petitioner's license to operate a group family day care home.
ADJUDGED that the determination 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 a determination of the designee of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS), which affirmed a prior determination of OCFS, after a hearing, revoking 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" ( Matter of Faponnle v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 160 A.D.3d 950, 951, 72 N.Y.S.3d 486 ; 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 of Bauer v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 55 A.D.3d 421, 422, 866 N.Y.S.2d 626 ). Here, the determination that the petitioner committed the nine violations with which she was charged is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Liddell v. New York State Off. of Children and 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 ; Matter of Occhiogrosso v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 72 A.D.3d at 1092, 898 N.Y.S.2d 874 ).
Further, the penalty imposed did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Faponnle v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 160 A.D.3d at 951, 72 N.Y.S.3d 486 ; Matter of Malak v. State of New York , 116 A.D.3d 587, 588, 985 N.Y.S.2d 5 ; Matter of Simpson v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 94 A.D.3d at 1009, 942 N.Y.S.2d 374 ).
CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, DUFFY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.