Michael X. v. N.Y. State Cent. Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment

• Decision Date: 14 October 2010
• Parties: In the Matter of MICHAEL X., Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 765

77 A.D.3d 1026

In the Matter of MICHAEL X., Petitioner,

v.NEW YORK STATE CENTRAL REGISTER OF CHILD ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT, Respondent.

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

Oct. 14, 2010.

Gerald V. Amedio, P.C., Saratoga Springs (Gerard V. Amedio of counsel), for petitioner.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR., KAVANAGH and STEIN, JJ.

STEIN, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Office of Children and Family Services which, after a hearing, denied petitioner's application to have a report maintained by respondent amended to be unfounded and expunged.

In December 2006, an investigation was initiated against petitioner based upon allegations that he sexually abused his stepdaughter. Thereafter, the Washington County Department of Social Services determined that the report against petitioner was supported by credible evidence. As a result, the report was indicated and filed with respondent. Petitioner then contacted the Office of Children and Family Services (hereinafter OCFS) and requested that the report be amended from indicated to unfounded. OCFS denied the request and scheduled an administrative hearing pursuant to Social Services Law § 422(8). Subsequent to the hearing, OCFS again denied petitioner's request and he thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. Whether a report of abuse is indicated must beestablished at the hearing by a fair preponderance of the evidence, but our review is restricted to whether the administrative determination was supported by substantial evidence or, rather, whether " reasonable minds could adequately accept the conclusion based on the relevant proof" ( Matter of Tonette E. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 25 A.D.3d 994, 995, 807 N.Y.S.2d 694 [2006]; see Matter of Stephen C. v. Johnson, 39 A.D.3d 932, 933, 834 N.Y.S.2d 346 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 804, 840 N.Y.S.2d 764, 872 N.E.2d 877 [2007] ). Here, the victim's accounts of the abuse and the description of her abuser were consistent throughout her interviews with police and caseworkers, as well as in her grand jury testimony, during which she unequivocally identified petitioner. The fact that there were minor inconsistencies in the victim's various accounts and that ...