Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 554. ¶ 15 On appeal, defendant likens his interaction with police to the circumstances presented in In re Rafael E., 2014 IL App (1st) 113027. In that case, two uniformed officers were in a marked squad car when they observed the respondent and several other individuals standing and talking at the mouth of an alley in a "high narcotics" area, when the respondent looked in the officers' direction and then briskly walked away from the group with his hands in his pockets.

In the Matter of Sanayi BECKLES, Appellant, v. Rafael E. CESTERO, etc., Respondent.Reported below, 102 A.D.3d 559, 959 N.Y.S.2d 41. Motion for leave to appeal denied.

Petitioner's argument that she mailed pay stubs to HPD and relied upon the erroneous advice of an HPD employee is unavailing. The Hearing Officer discredited petitioner's testimony to that effect, and there is no basis upon which to disturb this credibility determination ( see Matter of Beckles v. Cestero, 102 A.D.3d 559, 959 N.Y.S.2d 41 [1st Dept. 2013] ). The penalty imposed does not shock one's sense of fairness under the circumstances ( see e.g. Matter of Perrette v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 105 A.D.3d 401, 962 N.Y.S.2d 123 [1st Dept. 2013];Matter of Gerena v. Donovan, 51 A.D.3d 502, 858 N.Y.S.2d 133 [1st Dept. 2008] ).