You are here: / / JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING...
,

JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined the controlling Social Services Law statutes did not give the Justice Center for the Protection of Persons with Special Needs (Justice Center) the authority to find make a “neglect” finding against a facility for people with developmental disabilities. When two staff members left a resident unsupervised the resident engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. The resident had acted similarly in the past:

… [T]he issue before us “is one of pure statutory interpretation dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent” … . In performing this function, we are “constitutionally bound to give effect to the expressed will of the Legislature and the plain and obvious meaning of a statute is always preferred to any curious, narrow or hidden sense that nothing but a strained interpretation of legislative intent would discern” … .

… While the Justice Center is indeed permitted to make a “concurrent finding” with respect to a facility or provider agency in conjunction with either a substantiated or unsubstantiated report, the scope of that “concurrent finding” is expressly circumscribed by the statute. By its terms, the only “concurrent finding” that may be made is “that a systemic problem caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident” (Social Services Law § 493 [3] [b]). Had the Legislature intended to authorize the Justice Center to make a concurrent finding of neglect as against a facility or provider agency, it could have expressly said so. Likewise, if it was the intent of the Legislature to equate a finding “that a systemic problem caused or contributed to the occurrence of the incident” with a finding of “neglect,” it could have easily done so through use of the term “neglect.” It is axiomatic that “new language cannot be imported into a statute to give it a meaning not otherwise found therein” (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 94 at 190), nor can a court “amend a statute by inserting words that are not there” … . Matter of Anonymous v Molik, 2016 NY Slip Op 04288, 3rd Dept 6-2-16

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)/DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, PEOPLE WITH (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)/NEGLECT (JUSTICE CENTER DID NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING AGAINST A FACILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES)

You might also like
THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY AND THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER DID NOT CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER’S REPORT AND TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (THIRD DEPT).
New Medicaid Reimbursement Procedures Did Not Violate State Administrative Procedure Act
THE ZIP CODES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME ADDRESSES OF STATE EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BECAUSE THE FULL HOME ADDRESSES COULD EASILY BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET BY SEARCHING FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NAME WITH THE RELATED ZIP CODE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
Attorney Was an “Employee,” Not an Independent Contractor, for Puposes of the State and Local Employees’ Retirement System
RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVING CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CUSTODY, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE CLAIMANT’S SIGNING A STIPULATION AGREEING TO RESIGN, A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT PROVIDED GOOD CAUSE FOR HER RESIGNATION 3RD DEPT.
PETTIONERS (LICENSED CANNABIS RETAILERS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RESPONDENT AGENCY’S REGULATIONS CONCERNING INSPECTIONS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AT PETITIONERS’ PLACES OF BUSINESS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL; THE ALLEGATION THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INSPECTIONS ARE CONDUCTED VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION IS PREMATURE BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBJECTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, I.E., THE “EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES” REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET (THIRD DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS TRIP AND... LONG HAUL TRUCKERS NOT EMPLOYEES.