Blythe v. Carrion, 63 A.D.3d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Blythe v. Carrion, 63 A.D.3d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (35 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (nyappdiv, 2016-03-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Iacono v. New York State Cent. Register of N.Y. State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Irving v Carrion, 120 AD3d 500 [2014]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Irving v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian M. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Judicial review of a determination that such a report has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is sup ported, by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]; Matter of Joseph v Johnson, 27 AD3d 563, 563 [2006]; see also 300 Gramatan Ave.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian M. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Judicial review of a determination that such a report has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is sup ported, by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]; Matter of Joseph v Johnson, 27 AD3d 563, 563 [2006]; see also 300 Gramatan Ave.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frimpong-Badu v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
“At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child abuse or maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2009]; see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reed v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child abuse or maltreatment is substantiated, the allegations in the report must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard R. v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the determination that he maltreated the subject child by failing to provide proper supervision or guardianship was supported by substantial evidence (see Family Ct Act § 1012 [f] [i] [B]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059-1060 [2009]; Matter of Joseph O., 28 AD3d 562, 563 [2006]; Matter of Sheomber v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 22 AD3d 761, 762 [2005]; Matter of Solivan v Johnson, 9 AD3d 467 [2004]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Saporito v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
“At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child abuse or maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2009]; see Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Molly Blythe
v.
Gladys Carrion
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 23, 2009.
63 A.D.3d 1059
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated December 20, 2007, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to amend and seal a report maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child abuse or maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Lee TT v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Valentine v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d 249 [2007];

[*1060] Matter of Lynnann P. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 28 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]; Matter of Jeannette LL. v Johnson, 2 AD3d 1261, 1262 [2003]). Judicial review of a determination that a report of child abuse or maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Valentine v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d at 249-250; Matter of Lynnann P. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 28 AD3d at 485; Matter of Jeannette LL. v Johnson, 2 AD3d at 1263). Here, the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that a fair preponderance of the evidence established that the petitioner maltreated the subject child by creating a “substantial risk of physical injury ... to such child by other than accidental means” (Social Services Law § 412 [9] [b]) is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits. .

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court or are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Fisher, Éng and Hall, JJ., concur.