Opinion
2014-06-18
In the Matter of Shamica JOHNSON, petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., respondents.
Gilbert J. West, Sr., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecelia C. Chang and Brian A. Sutherland of counsel), for respondents New York State Office of Children and Family Services and New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
Gilbert J. West, Sr., Poughkeepsie, N.Y., for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Cecelia C. Chang and Brian A. Sutherland of counsel), for respondents New York State Office of Children and Family Services and New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated July 19, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application to amend and seal an indicated report maintained by the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a preponderance of the evidence ( see Matter of Lee TT. v. Dowling, 87 N.Y.2d 699, 703, 642 N.Y.S.2d 181, 664 N.E.2d 1243;Matter of Blythe v. Carrion, 63 A.D.3d 1059, 880 N.Y.S.2d 555). Our review of the determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services that the petitioner maltreated the subject children is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Washington v. State of New York Off. of Children & Family Servs., 78 A.D.3d 1066, 1067, 910 N.Y.S.2d 916;Matter of Blythe v. Carrion, 63 A.D.3d at 1060, 880 N.Y.S.2d 555). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the determination that she maltreated the subject children as alleged in the subject report is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Frimpong–Badu v. Carrion, 85 A.D.3d 787, 788, 924 N.Y.S.2d 818;Matter of Blythe v. Carrion, 63 A.D.3d at 1060, 880 N.Y.S.2d 555).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are either without merit or not properly before this Court.