Court Opinion

ID: 9890213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 17:09:22.392077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:41.270086
License: Public Domain

Matter of Lopez v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. (2023 NY Slip Op 05189)

Matter of Lopez v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

2023 NY Slip Op 05189

Decided on October 12, 2023

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 12, 2023

Before: Webber, J.P., Kern, Singh, Scarpulla, Rosado, JJ. 

Index No. 150924/22 Appeal No. 762 Case No. 2023-00910 

[*1]In the Matter of Amy Lopez, Petitioner,
vNew York State Office of Children and Family Services, Respondent.

Law Office of Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., LLC, New York (Gregory P. Mouton, Jr. of counsel), for petitioner.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Mark S. Grube of counsel), for respondent.

Determination of respondent New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS), dated November 16, 2021, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioner's license to operate a group family daycare, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [William Franc Perry, J.], entered October 13, 2022), dismissed, without costs.
Substantial evidence supports OCFS's determination to revoke petitioner's license on the grounds that she violated several of its regulations, placing the health, safety and welfare of the children in imminent danger (see Clarke v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 91 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2012]). The evidence shows that petitioner left the daycare children with unsupervised caregivers, who were not approved by OCFS, on multiple occasions (see 18 NYCRR 416.8[a], [d], 416.13[f]). The hearing testimony and photos submitted by OCFS taken during an inspection of petitioner's daycare also show that cleaning supplies, including bleach, were left in areas accessible to the children, and that the gate to the kitchen was not secured (see 18 NYCRR 416.5[a], [f][2], [j]).
The revocation of petitioner's license under these circumstances does not shock the conscience (see Matter of Malak v State of New York, 116 AD3d 587, 588 [1st Dept 2014]; Matter of Unity Home Care Agency, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 171 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2019]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: October 12, 2023