IN RE: ADALISA R. (2021)

Determination of respondent, dated May 24, 2017, which, after a hearing, denied petitioner's request to amend and seal two indicated reports finding maltreatment of her daughter, and allowed disclosure of the reports' existence to provider and licensing agencies making inquiry, 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 [John J. Kelley, J.], entered on or about December 27, 2018), dismissed, without costs.

The determination of respondent is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see CPLR 7803[4];  300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179–182, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978];  see also Matter of Haug v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Potsdam, 32 N.Y.3d 1044, 1045–1046, 87 N.Y.S.3d 146, 112 N.E.3d 323 [2018] ).  Petitioner abandons her challenge to the indicated report arising from her failure to protect her underage daughter from sexual abuse by the child's father, to which collateral estoppel applies.  As for the other indicated report, the finding that the daughter's “physical, mental or emotional condition has been impaired or is in imminent danger of becoming impaired as a result of the failure of [petitioner] ․ to exercise a minimum degree of care ․ by unreasonably ․ allowing to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk thereof” (Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 3 N.Y.3d 357, 368, 787 N.Y.S.2d 196, 820 N.E.2d 840 [2004], quoting Family Court Act § 1012[f][i][B] ), is supported by substantial evidence (see 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, 230, 356 N.Y.S.2d 833, 313 N.E.2d 321 [1974] ).  That evidence shows that petitioner allowed an adult male to move into her underage daughter's bedroom, apparently before the daughter became pregnant, and that petitioner encouraged the relationship (see Matter of Tyler MM. (Stephanie NN.), 82 A.D.3d 1374, 1376–1377, 918 N.Y.S.2d 644 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 703, 2011 WL 2237121 [2011];  Matter of Shannen AA. [Melissa BB], 80 A.D.3d 906, 909, 914 N.Y.S.2d 768 [3d Dept. 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 709, 2011 WL 1160356 [2011];  see also Social Services Law § 412[2][a] ).  Respondent was not required to credit petitioner's testimony at the hearing, which was inconsistent with the statements she made to the investigating agency, and we find no grounds to overturn the credibility determination (see Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443–444, 522 N.Y.S.2d 478, 517 N.E.2d 193 [1987] ).

Contrary to petitioner's contention, respondent sufficiently addressed the various factors in its guidelines when concluding that the reports were “relevant and reasonably related to” petitioner's asserted work in child care (Social Services Law § 422[8][a][i]-[ii] );  see Matter of Natasha W. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 32 N.Y.3d 982, 984, 85 N.Y.S.3d 391, 110 N.E.3d 503 [2018], revg 145 A.D.3d 401, 410, 42 N.Y.S.3d 126 [1st Dept. 2016] ).

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