IN RE: Vanessa VEGA (2022)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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 to review a determination, made after a fair hearing, denying her request to amend an indicated report of maltreatment with respect to her daughter to an unfounded report, and to seal it (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [c] [ii]). “At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child ․ maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Reynolds v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 101 A.D.3d 1738, 1738, 955 N.Y.S.2d 909 [4th Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and “[o]ur review ․ is limited to whether the determination was supported by substantial evidence in the record on the petitioner[’s] application for expungement” (Matter of Mangus v. Niagara County Dept. of Social Servs., 68 A.D.3d 1774, 1774, 893 N.Y.S.2d 410 [4th Dept. 2009], lv denied 15 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 3430855 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, testimony from a Monroe County Child Protective Services caseworker established that petitioner coached the child to fabricate allegations of abuse against the child's father and his girlfriend, thereby causing the child to be subjected to unnecessary professional examinations and interviews and harming the child's physical, mental, or emotional well-being. We thus conclude that, on the record before us, substantial evidence supports the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that it was established by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner maltreated the child (see Matter of Kern v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 174 A.D.3d 1434, 1435, 108 N.Y.S.3d 232 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 906, 2019 WL 6909717 [2019]; Matter of Daniel D., 57 A.D.3d 444, 444, 870 N.Y.S.2d 287 [1st Dept. 2008], lv dismissed 12 N.Y.3d 906, 884 N.Y.S.2d 684, 912 N.E.2d 1064 [2009]).

Moreover, the evidence at the hearing established that petitioner failed to acknowledge that her behavior was harmful to the child and failed to appreciate the seriousness of her conduct, and we therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's determination that petitioner's maltreatment of the subject child was likely to recur (see Matter of Warren v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 164 A.D.3d 1615, 1617, 85 N.Y.S.3d 296 [4th Dept. 2018]) and was reasonably related to her employment working with children with disabilities (see id.; Matter of Garzon v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 85 A.D.3d 1603, 1604, 924 N.Y.S.2d 904 [4th Dept. 2011]; Matter of Castilloux v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 791 N.Y.S.2d 755 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 5 N.Y.3d 702, 800 N.Y.S.2d 373, 833 N.E.2d 708 [2005]).

Finally, we reject petitioner's contentions that she was deprived of a fair hearing when the ALJ denied her request for an adjournment after the hearing was underway (see Matter of Frederick G. v. New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 53 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 861 N.Y.S.2d 554 [4th Dept. 2008]) and that the ALJ demonstrated bias and hostility (see Matter of Sherwood v. New York State Dept. of Motor Vehs., 153 A.D.3d 1022, 1025, 59 N.Y.S.3d 837 [3d Dept. 2017]; Matter of Maglione v. New York State Dept. of Health, 9 A.D.3d 522, 523, 779 N.Y.S.2d 319 [3d Dept. 2004]).