Opinion
Submitted November 9, 2000.
December 6, 2000.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated April 30, 1999, adopting the recommendation of a Hearing Officer, made after a hearing, revoking all licenses issued to the petitioners by the respondent, and denied all pending license applications by the petitioners.
Daniel J. Corley, Jackson Heights, N.Y., for petitioners.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Robert A. Forte and Richard C. Rubinstein of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the petition is dismissed, with costs.
Judicial review of a determination made by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether or not that determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Liuzzo v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 209 A.D.2d 618). "An administrative determination will be found to be supported by substantial evidence if there is a rational basis in the record for the findings of fact on which the agency's decision is based" (Matter of McKie v. Corcoran, 162 A.D.2d 535, 536; see also, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 442).
Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the respondent's determination of the petitioners' incompetency and untrustworthiness was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Rosen v. Levin, 259 A.D.2d 395; Pasternack v. Muhl, 248 A.D.2d 246, 247; Matter of Glick v. Curiale, 223 A.D.2d 501; Matter of McKie v. Corcoran, supra, at 536; Matter of Bowley Assoc. v. State of New York Ins. Dept., 98 A.D.2d 521, 527, affd 63 N.Y.2d 982; Matter of Russell v. Stewart, 30 A.D.2d 749).
Moreover, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the penalty of revocation is not so disproportionate to the offenses committed as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Pasternack v. Muhl, supra; Kalastein Assocs. v. New York State Ins. Dept., 243 A.D.2d 408; Matter of Glick v. Curiale, supra, at 502; Matter of McKie v. Corcoran, supra, at 537; Matter of Russell v. Stewart, supra).