Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Clarke v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided January 12, 2012

91 A.D.3d 489; 935 N.Y.2d 884

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Lopez v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Unity Home Care Agency, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Health (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Riel v. State of N.Y. Off. of Children & Family Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Malak v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Malak v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Simpson v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner violated relevant regulations, including refusing to cooperate and allow access to the home (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10]), and by not having the proper number of caregivers present for each child under the age of two years old (18 NYCRR 416.8 [d] [2]), and that such violations placed the children’s health, safety and welfare in imminent danger (see Matter of Seemangal v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 49 AD3d 460 [2008]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

The determination to revoke petitioner’s license does not shock our sense of fairness (see Seemangal at 461; cf. Matter of Grady v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 39 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2007]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.