Opinion
January 23, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jawn A. Sandifer, J.).
We find the Hearing Officer's findings — adopted by respondent — crediting the testimony of several witnesses to the effect that petitioner allowed minors to purchase alcoholic beverages on April 24, 1986, October 26, 1986 and December 26, 1986, to be supported by substantial evidence. Thus, this finding may not be disturbed by this court. (Matter of Panacea Tavern v. New York State Liq. Auth., 144 A.D.2d 562.) Nor do we find any violation of administrative due process. Respondent's denial of petitioner's request to controvert the ALJ's findings, made some three months after the ALJ's decision and one month after respondent adopted such findings, did not deprive petitioner of due process. (See, e.g., Matter of Heiss v. Duffy, 149 A.D.2d 902.)
Additionally, the penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense, in light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness. (See, Matter of Heiss v Duffy, supra; Matter of Kelly v. Duffy, 144 A.D.2d 792; Matter of 596 Main St. Corp. v. New York State Liq Auth., 141 A.D.2d 643.)
We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.