IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF JACQUELINE FLEMING

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF JACQUELINE FLEMING, PETITIONER–APPELLANT, v. KIDSPEACE NATIONAL CENTERS, BETY FARKAS, LSMW, PROGRAM MANAGER AND JAIME A. KOSICH, MSEDC, FAMILY RESOURCE SPECIALIST, RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.

CA 11–00780

Decided: April 20, 2012

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, FAHEY, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. FRANK S. FALZONE, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER–APPELLANT. HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (DALE WORRALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS–RESPONDENTS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:  Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination to “terminat[e]” her certification as a foster parent.   Petitioner contends that she was denied procedural due process because she was not given notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to the termination.   We reject that contention.   KidsPeace National Centers (respondent) notified petitioner by letter that it would “close” her certification effective July 10, 2009.   Petitioner's current certification to board children expired July 2, 2009 in any event, and thus respondent essentially notified petitioner that it would not renew her certification.  “A hearing is required only where a license is to be suspended or revoked and ․ due process does not mandate such a hearing before the denial of a renewal license” (Matter of M.S.B.A. Corp. v. Markowitz, 23 AD3d 390, 391;  see Matter of Daxor Corp. v State of N.Y. Dept. of Health, 90 N.Y.2d 89, 98, rearg. denied 90 N.Y.2d 937, cert denied 523 U.S. 1074;  Testwell, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 80 AD3d 266, 273–274).   Thus, the only rights petitioner had to notice and an opportunity to be heard were pursuant to respondent's own policies and the applicable state regulation, and “[t]he record amply demonstrates that these requirements were satisfied” (Testwell, Inc., 80 AD3d at 274).   With respect to the state regulation, petitioner was given timely notice of respondent's decision and the reasons therefor, as required by 18 NYCRR 444.11(a), and was afforded the requisite opportunity “to meet with an official of the agency to review the decision and the reasons for the agency decision” (18 NYCRR 443.11[b] ).  We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court