CASTILLOUX v. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (2005)

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul a determination following a fair hearing of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services finding that he committed acts of maltreatment and that those acts of maltreatment are reasonably related to his employment in child care or his provision of foster or adoptive care, and denying his request to amend the indicated report of maltreatment to an unfounded report (see Social Services Law § 422[8][c], [e] ).   We conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence.   The proof presented by respondent Erie County Department of Social Services that petitioner struck his son, causing lacerations and bruises, warrants a finding of maltreatment based on excessive corporal punishment (see Matter of Vincent KK. v. State of New York Off. of Children & Family Servs., 284 A.D.2d 777, 777-778, 725 N.Y.S.2d 766;  Matter of Maroney v. Perales, 102 A.D.2d 487, 488-489, 478 N.Y.S.2d 123).   Contrary to petitioner's contention, such a finding may be based upon a single incident (see Matter of Mary Ellen P. v. John R., 278 A.D.2d 750, 752, 718 N.Y.S.2d 442;  Matter of Samuel Y., 270 A.D.2d 531, 532, 703 N.Y.S.2d 591).   Contrary to petitioner's further contention, the evidence that the child was both physically injured and emotionally harmed as a result of the incident supports the finding that the excessive corporal punishment impaired his physical, mental or emotional condition or placed him in imminent danger of such impairment (see Family Ct. Act § 1012[f][i];  Social Services Law § 412[2][a][i];  Maroney, 102 A.D.2d at 489, 478 N.Y.S.2d 123).   Based upon all of the evidence presented at the hearing, we see no reason to disturb the finding that petitioner's acts of maltreatment are relevant and reasonably related to employment in child care or the provision of adoptive or foster care (see Matter of Jeannette LL. v. Johnson, 2 A.D.3d 1261, 1263, 770 N.Y.S.2d 209).   Finally, we reject petitioner's contention that the Administrative Law Judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence at the fair hearing (see Vincent KK., 284 A.D.2d at 777, 725 N.Y.S.2d 766;  Matter of Gerald G. v. State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 A.D.2d 918, 919, 670 N.Y.S.2d 267;  Matter of Bullock v. State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 A.D.2d 380, 382, 669 N.Y.S.2d 618).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: