Opinion
June 19, 1995
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The record contains substantial evidence that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 111. Although the respondent relied, in part, on hearsay evidence, such evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings and may constitute substantial evidence (see, Matter of A.J. Taylor Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 214 A.D.2d 727). Where there is conflicting testimony and questions of credibility, the Administrative Law Judge is free to resolve those conflicts (see, Matter of Collins v. Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269; Matter of Abdelrahman v. New York State Liq. Auth., 209 A.D.2d 405), and we may not weigh the evidence or reject the administrative agency's determination of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436; Matter of Abdelrahman v. New York State Liq. Auth., supra). Thus, in order for an appellate court to annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, the court must conclude that the record lacks substantial evidence to support that determination (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Matter of Immerso v Commissioner of Dept. of Sanitation of City of N.Y., 207 A.D.2d 894). Based on our review of the record, we find that there was substantial evidence to support the agency's determination (see, e.g., Matter of Dumbarton Oaks Rest. Bar v. New York State Liq. Auth., 58 N.Y.2d 89).
In light of all of the circumstances, the sanction imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of A.J. Taylor Rest. v. New York State Liq. Auth., supra). Mangano, P.J., Joy, Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.