Opinion
March 23, 1995
After a hearing, petitioner was found guilty of selling alcoholic beverages to a patron who was under the age of 21. Focusing largely upon the admissibility of certain evidence, petitioner contends that substantial evidence is lacking on the issue of the patron's age. The technical rules of evidence are inapplicable in administrative hearings (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 306). Hearsay evidence is not only admissible, it may even serve as the basis for the administrative determination in some circumstances (see, Matter of Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741; People ex rel. Vega v. Smith, 66 N.Y.2d 130, 139). The legal residuum rule is no longer followed (Matter of Shoestring Enters. v. Duffy, 145 A.D.2d 730, 731). Our review of the record reveals sufficient evidence on the issue of the patron's age to satisfy the substantial evidence test set forth in People ex rel. Vega v. Smith (supra, at 139) and 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights ( 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180).
Mikoll, J.P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.