You are here: / / PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES,...

PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner, an employee of the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities at the Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities Service Office, “committed acts of neglect [within the meaning of the Social Services Law] when [she] breached [her] duty towards multiple service recipients by failing to use appropriate and professional language in their presence.” Petitioner had used the work “retarded” in conversations overheard by two service recipients:

… [N]eglect is defined as an action “that breaches a custodian’s duty and that results in or is likely to result in physical injury or serious or protracted impairment of the physical, mental or emotional condition of a service recipient” (Social Services Law § 488 [1] [h]). Here, it is undisputed that petitioner used the word “retarded” while in a classroom when she was discussing mandated overtime work with the staff. Petitioner’s statement was overheard by two of the service recipients, who were, not surprisingly, offended by the word as evidenced by one service recipient running away from the classroom to report the incident and the other still being upset several days after the incident. Both of these service recipients were diagnosed with mild developmental disabilities, as well as a legion of other diagnoses. Petitioner, who had worked at the Brooklyn Developmental Disabilities Service Office for 10 years, worked directly with the service recipients and was familiar with their emotional and psychological conditions. Further, petitioner is charged with caring for these service recipients, who of course develop trust for their aides. Given this context, it is foreseeable that the word used by the trusted caregiver would be likely to seriously impair the service recipients’ already fragile emotional and psychological condition and there is no need for expert testimony to establish same … . As such, substantial evidence supports respondent’s final determination that petitioner committed a category three act of neglect … . Matter of Kelly v New York State Justice Ctr. for The Protection of People With Special Needs, 2018 NY Slip Op 03407, Third Dept 5-10-18

SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, NEGLECT, PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT))/DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS (NEGLECT, PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT))/NEGLECT (DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS, SOCIAL SERVICES LAW, PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT))/RETARDED'(PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, NEGLECT, PETITIONER, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, COMMITTED NEGLECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW WHEN SHE USED THE TERM ‘RETARDED’ IN A CONVERSATION OVERHEARD BY SERVICE RECIPIENTS (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION IS REQUIRED BY CPLR 5001; THE REQUEST FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR DELAY IN BRINGING SUIT (THIRD DEPT).
Industrial Code Provision Which Prohibits Allowing an Employee to Use an “Elevated Working Surface Which Is In a Slippery Condition” Does Not Apply to Snow Removal/The Injury—a Slip and Fall While Shoveling Snow—Was Caused by “An Integral Part of the Work”
SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (THIRD DEPT).
THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS CANNOT REDUCE THEIR NEW YORK ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME BY THE AMORTIZED PREMIUMS ON THEIR OUT-STATE-BONDS UPHELD (THIRD DEPT).
Note Which Was Extended and Consolidated with Other Debts Was Not Extinguished by the Consolidation, Extension and Modification Agreement (CEMA)—the Agreement, Therefore, Did Not Commence the Running of the Statute of Limitations for an Action on the Note
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE CREDIBILITY OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS IMPROPERLY BOLSTERED IN OPINION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER AND A PSYCHOLOGIST ASSERTING THAT THE VICTIM WAS BELIEVABLE AND RELIABLE; A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY ONE OF THE VICTIMS, IN WHICH THE VICTIM DENIED DEFENDANT HAD EVER MOLESTED THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
Limitation of Liability Clause in House-Design Contract Valid
Court Should Not Have Summarily Determined Declaratory Judgment Action In Absence of a Request to Do So/The Mootness Doctrine Precluded Court Rulings on an Expired Contract/The Open Meetings Law Was Violated by the Town

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 ALLOWING TANDEM RIDING AND SPINNING THE TUBES IN ICY... CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT...