IN RE: Diwantie SEEMANGAL (2008)

Determination of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated May 17, 2006, after an evidentiary 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 the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis B. York, J.], entered January 26, 2007) dismissed, without costs.

 Substantial evidence supports respondents' findings that petitioner violated four Department of Social Services regulations covering the management and administration of group family day care homes (18 NYCRR 416.15[a][10] [refusal to cooperate and allow access to the home];  18 NYCRR 416.8[c][2] [use of an unauthorized caregiver];  18 NYCRR 416.15[a][4] [exceeding authorized capacity];  and 18 NYCRR 416.4[f] [non-approved second egress] ) and that such violations placed the health, safety and welfare of the children in imminent danger (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179-180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ).

 Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the issuance of the report by a person who did not preside at the hearing.   The regulations specifically require that the decision after fair hearing be made by the Commissioner or his or her designee and that it be based “ exclusively on the record of the hearing” (18 NYCRR § 413.5[m];  see Matter of Pluta v. New York State Off. of Children and Family Servs., 17 A.D.3d 1126, 1127, 794 N.Y.S.2d 261 [2005], lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 715, 806 N.Y.S.2d 166, 840 N.E.2d 135 [2005] ).

 The determination to revoke petitioner's license does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Featherstone v. Franco, 95 N.Y.2d 550, 554, 720 N.Y.S.2d 93, 742 N.E.2d 607 [2000];  Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 N.Y.2d 222, 232-234, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them without merit.