Supreme Court properly concluded that the DOB's determination not to renew petitioner's licenses was neither arbitrary and capricious nor irrational (see CPLR 7803[3]; Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 28-401.12, 28-401.19). The record adequately supports the DOB's determination that petitioner made false statements in documents submitted to a government agency and displayed poor moral character, adversely reflecting on his fitness to conduct the regulated work (see Administrative Code § 28-401.19[2], [13]; Matter of Tsamos v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 192 A.D.3d 494, 494 [1st Dept 2021]; Testwell, Inc. v New York City Dept. of Bldgs., 80 A.D.3d 266, 277 [1st Dept 2010]). Nor was the DOB required to conduct an analysis under Correction Law §§ 752 and 753, as petitioner was not actually convicted of any crime (see Matter of Markman v New York State Dept. of Educ., 131 A.D.2d 908, 909 [3d Dept 1987]; see also Bonacorsa v Van Lindt, 71 N.Y.2d 605, 611 [1988]).