Opinion
November 16, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.).
The hearing evidence amply supports the allegations contained in specifications 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Other than testimony that the sexually explicit statements were made in jest, petitioner made no showing which would substantially challenge the testimony received from the four witnesses presented by the respondent. The Trial Commissioner having rejected petitioner's claim of frivolity and having credited the testimony of these witnesses, there is no support in the record for petitioner's contention that his dismissal was arbitrary, capricious and against the weight of substantial evidence. (See, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444.)
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Carro, Asch, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.