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: LYNN KORDASIEWICZ, PETITIONER, v. ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CPS UNIT, AND NEW YORK STATE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT, 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 order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [John M. Curran, J.], entered October 1, 2013) to review a determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. The determination denied petitioner's application to amend the indicated report of maltreatment to an unfounded report.
It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
It is well established that our review is limited to whether the determination to deny the request to amend and seal the SCR report is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Fechter v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 107 AD3d 1583, 1584; Matter of Mangus v Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs., 68 AD3d 1774, 1774, lv denied 15 NY3d 705). Substantial evidence in the record is “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180). Although hearsay evidence alone, if it is sufficiently reliable and probative, may constitute sufficient evidence to support a determination (see Matter of Saporito v. Carrion, 66 AD3d 912, 912; Matter of Hattie G. v Monroe County Dept. of Social Servs., 48 AD3d 1292, 1293), we note that, contrary to petitioner's further contention, the determination herein was not based solely on the hearsay contained in the SCR report. Instead, after acknowledging that the criminal charges had been dismissed, the Hearing Officer based his determination on petitioner's admission that she had drunk three glasses of wine and that she knew that the Datamaster test results indicated a BAC of .18%, together with “the evidence in its entirety.” We therefore conclude that the determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Fechter, 107 AD3d at 1584; cf. Hattie G., 48 AD3d at 1293).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: TP 13–02183
Decided: July 11, 2014
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)