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

Clarke v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. 2012 NY Slip Op 00126 Decided on January 12, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 12, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Freedman, Román, JJ.
6541 117611/09

[*1]Velda Clarke, Petitioner,

v

New York State Office of Children and Family Services, Respondent.




Sethi & Mazaheri, LLC., New York (Rehan Nazrali of
counsel), for petitioner.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Patrick J.
Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Determination of respondent, dated August 26, 2009, after a 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 Supreme Court, New York County [Marylin G. Diamond, J.], entered August 6, 2010), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports respondent's findings that petitioner violated relevant regulations, including refusing to cooperate and allow access to the home (18 NYCRR 416.15[a][10]), and by not having the proper number of caregivers present for each child under the age of two years old (18 NYCRR 416.8[d][2]), and that such violations placed the children's health, safety and welfare in imminent danger (see Matter of Seemangal v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 49 AD3d 460 [2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]

The determination to revoke petitioner's license does not shock our sense of fairness (see Seemangal at 461; cf. Matter of Grady v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 39 [*2]AD3d 1157, 1158 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 12, 2012

CLERK