Reed v. Carrion, 84 A.D.3d 1094 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Reed v. Carrion, 84 A.D.3d 1094 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Elizabeth B. v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services (nyappdiv, 2017-02-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Elizabeth B. v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Irving v Carrion, 120 AD3d at 500 ; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Chinnery v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Irving v Carrion, 120 AD3d at 500 ; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
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
Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Irving v Carrion, 120 AD3d at 500 ; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Irving v. Carrion
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Judicial review of a determination that a report of maltreatment has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]; Matter of Benjamin v Carrion, 79 AD3d 744, 744 [2010]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marie A.P. v. Nassau County Department of Social 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 supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marie A.P. v. Nassau County Department of Social 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 supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1095 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian M. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child 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 3NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brian M. v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
At an administrative expungement hearing to determine whether a report of child 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 3NY2d 699, 703 [1996]; Matter of Reed v Carrion, 84 AD3d 1094, 1094 [2011]).
In the Matter of Carole Reed
v.
Gladys Carrion
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 17, 2011.
84 A.D.3d 1094
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services dated April 7, 2009, 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 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]). “It is the function of the administrative agency, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses” (Matter of Bullock v State of N.Y. Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 380, 382 [1998]).

Judicial review of a determination that such a report has been substantiated is limited to whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d at 1060; Matter of Joseph v Johnson, 27 AD3d 563 [2006]). Substantial evidence “means 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 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). “It has also been held that substantial evidence is . . . more than mere speculation or conjecture, but less than a preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Joseph v Johnson, 27 AD3d at 563, citing 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d at 180).

Here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the New York State Office of Children and[*1095] Family Services (hereinafter OCFS) that the petitioner committed the acts of maltreatment asserted in a certain report maintained by the Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (hereinafter Central Register) (see Matter of Joseph v Johnson, 27 AD3d 563 [2006]; Matter of Castilloux v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 AD3d 1061 [2005]; Matter of Jello v Perales, 206 AD2d 532 [1994]; Matter of Mary Y. v Perales, 186 AD2d 325 [1992]; Matter of Golden v Department of Social Servs. of Broome County, 155 AD2d 853 [1989]).

OCFS also properly determined that the petitioner’s maltreatment of the child was relevant and reasonably related to childcare employment, the adoption of a child, or the provision of foster care (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [c] [ii]; Matter of Patterson v State of N.Y. Off. of Children & Family Servs., 34 AD3d 684 [2006]; Matter of Castilloux v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 16 AD3d 1061 [2005]). Accordingly, the determination denying the petitioner’s application to amend and seal the report filed with the Central Register must be confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits. Dillon, J.E, Balkin, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.