Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Isamar ALEJO-CRUTCHFIELD, Petitioner, v. State of New York OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES and Jefferson County Department of Social Services, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County [Danielle M. Fogel, J.], dated August 19, 2024) to review a determination of respondent State of New York Office of Children and Family Services. The determination denied petitioner's request that a report maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment, indicating petitioner for maltreatment, be amended to unfounded.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination made after a fair hearing that denied her request to amend an indicated report of maltreatment with respect to the subject child to an unfounded report and to seal that report. Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude on the record before us that “the determination that [respondent Jefferson County Department of Social Services] established by a fair preponderance of the evidence at the fair hearing that petitioner maltreated the subject child[ ] ․ is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Dawn M. v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 138 AD3d 1492, 1494 [4th Dept 2016]; see Matter of McShanley v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 213 AD3d 1253, 1254 [4th Dept 2023]; Matter of Kern v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 174 AD3d 1434, 1435-1436 [4th Dept 2019], lv denied 34 NY3d 906 [2019]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 65
Decided: February 07, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)