Legal Opinion
Seemangal v. New York State Office of Children & Family Services
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 27, 2008PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Substantial evidence supports respondents’ findings that petitioner violated four Department of Social Services regulations covering the management and administration of group family day care homes (18 NYCRR 416.15 [a] [10] [refusal to cooperate and allow access to the home]; 416.8 [c] [2] [use of an unauthorized caregiver]; 416.15 [a] [4] [exceeding authorized capacity]; 416.4 [f] [nonapproved second egress]) and that such violations placed the health, safety and welfare of the children in imminent danger (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human RightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Featherstone v. FrancoNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Pluta v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bauer v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Occhiogrosso v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Clarke v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Maude V. v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Simpson v. New York State Office of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.