In re Sara G.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Perkinson, J.), entered August 10, 1992, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, to adjudicate respondent a person in need of supervision.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding alleging that respondent was a person in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) due to her alleged absences from school. Respondent admitted the allegations contained in the petition and, following a dispositional hearing, was placed on probation for one year. Respondent now appeals, contending that the petition was jurisdictionally defective because it was based solely upon hearsay.

We agree that a noncertified, unauthenticated copy of a form purporting to be respondent’s attendance record does not qualify as a business record within the meaning of CPLR 4518 (a) (see, Matter of Jodel KK., 189 AD2d 63 , 64; see also, Matter of Board of Educ. v State Educ. Dept., 135 AD2d 903 , 905; Matter of George C., 91 Misc 2d 875 , 879), and the petition was therefore based solely upon hearsay. This Court has previously held, however, that there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that a PINS petition brought under Family Court Act article 7 set forth nonhearsay allegations (Matter of Jodel KK., supra; see, Matter of Guy II., 192 AD2d 770 ; Matter of Marangel LL., 192 AD2d 771 ; see also, Matter of Keith H., 188 AD2d 81 ). Accordingly, the petition here was not jurisdictionally defective and Family Court’s order adjudicating respondent a PINS should therefore be affirmed.