administrative expungement hearing in New York

2017At 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, 712 [1996]; Matter of Lopez v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 137 AD3d 1143, 1143 [2016]).

2016At 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, 500 [2014]; Matter of Esteva v New York State Cent.

2022"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 AD3d 1738 , 1738 [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 AD3d 1774, 1774 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotation

2022At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child abuse and maltreatment "must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence" ( Matter of Reynolds v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. , 101 AD3d 1738 , 1738 [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 AD3d 1774, 1774 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quota

2015At 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]).

2014At 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 Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059 [2009]).

2022Unit , 48 AD3d 1292, 1293 [4th Dept 2008]).

2015Unit, 48 AD3d 1292, 1293 [2008]).

2016Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059, 1059 [2009]).

2014Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]).

2013“At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child [abuse or] maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence^ 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 AD3d 1774, 1774-1775 [2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Saporito v Carrion, 66 AD3d 912, 912 [2009]).

2013“At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child [abuse or] maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence^ 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 AD3d 1774, 1774-1775 [2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Saporito v Carrion, 66 AD3d 912, 912 [2009]).

2006At an administrative expungement hearing, a report of child abuse or maltreatment must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence (see Matter of Steven A. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 307 AD2d 434, 435 [2003]).

2003Specifically, the Commissioner found by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner “placed the child Paula in imminent danger of impairment by engaging in a pattern of persistent and pervasive verbally abusive behavior and an inappropriate and ineffective response to the April 2, 2000 altercation.” The Commissioner further found such maltreatment “relevant and reasonably related to [petitioner’s] employment in child care or to her provision of foster or adoptive care.” “It is well settled that a report of child abuse or maltreatment must, at an administrative expungement hearing, be estab

2011Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 82 AD3d 978, 979 [2011]; Matter of Blythe v Carrion, 63 AD3d 1059 [2009]; Matter of Lynnann P. v Suffolk County Dept. of Social Servs., 28 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]).

2009Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d 249 [2007]; 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]).

2012At 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]).

2012At 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]).

2012Judicial 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.

2012Judicial 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.

2003In reviewing this administrative determination “our focus is whether the determination is rational and supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Gerald G. v State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 918, 919 [1998]; see Matter of Ribya BB. v Wing, 243 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1997]).

2003When reviewing such matters, our inquiry is “ ‘whether the determination is rational and supported by substantial evidence’ ” (Matter of Steven A. v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., supra at 435, quoting Matter of Gerald G. v State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 918, 919 [1998]).

2016At 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, 500 [2014]; Matter of Esteva v New York State Cent.

2015At 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]).

2018"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 AD3d 1738 , 1738 [4th Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]), and "[o]ur review . . . is limited to whether the determination [is] 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 AD3d 1774, 1774 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 705 [2010] [internal quotatio

2018Here, contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the evidence of maltreatment, including testimony that petitioner left two infants and a toddler upstairs in her home without supervision while she took the older children in her care for a 25-minute walk around the cul-de-sac and thereafter remained outside with the older children for an additional 25 to 30 minutes while the three babies were inside the house without supervision, constitutes substantial evidence to support the determination ( see Matter of Stead v Joyce , 147 AD3d 1317, 1318 [4th Dept 2017]; see generally Matter of D

2017At 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, 712 [1996]; Matter of Lopez v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 137 AD3d 1143, 1143 [2016]).

2010Child, Protective Servs., 68 AD3d 993, 993 [2009]; Matter of Barnes v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 67 AD3d 787, 787 [2009]).

2010Child, Protective Servs., 68 AD3d 993, 993 [2009]; Matter of Barnes v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 67 AD3d 787, 787 [2009]).

2009Register of Child Abusers & Maltreatment, 37 AD3d 249 [2007]; 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]).

2006However, on appeal, this Court’s focus is on whether the administrative determination is supported by substantial evidence, which exists when reasonable minds could adequately accept the conclusion based on the relevant proof (see Matter of Brauch v Johnson, 19 AD3d 799, 800 [2005]).

2003In reviewing this administrative determination “our focus is whether the determination is rational and supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Gerald G. v State of New York Dept. of Social Servs., 248 AD2d 918, 919 [1998]; see Matter of Ribya BB. v Wing, 243 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1997]).

2003It is well settled that a report of child abuse or maltreatment must, at an administrative expungement hearing, be established by a “fair preponderance of the evidence” (Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, 87 NY2d 699, 712 [1996]; see Matter of Vincent KK. v State of New York Off. of Children & Family Servs., 284 AD2d 777, 777 [2001]).