Matter of Blair v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.
2025 NYSlipOp 07145 [244 AD3d 1760]
December 23, 2025
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 4, 2026


[*1]
 In the Matter of Sarah Blair, Petitioner,
v
New York State Office of Children and Family Services et al., Respondents.

Gross Shuman, P.C., Buffalo (B. Kevin Burke, Jr., of counsel), for petitioner.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Rachel Raimondi of counsel), for respondents.


HEADNOTES


Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Determination of Office of Children and Family Services - Indicated Report of Maltreatment

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Erie County [Emilio Colaiacovo, J.], entered Apr. 15, 2025) to review a determination of respondents. The determination found that the indicated report of maltreatment against petitioner maintained in the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment is relevant and reasonably related to her employment in childcare.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination following a fair hearing finding that the indicated report of maltreatment against her is relevant and reasonably related to her employment in childcare (see Social Services Law § 422 [8] [c] [ii]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude on the record before us that the determination that petitioner's acts of maltreatment were relevant and reasonably related to childcare is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Dawn M. v New York State Cent. Register of Child Abuse & Maltreatment, 138 AD3d 1492, 1494 [4th Dept 2016]; Matter of Garzon v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs., 85 AD3d 1603, 1604 [4th Dept 2011]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. Present—Lindley, J.P., Curran, Bannister, Ogden and DelConte, JJ.