| Matter of S & S Pub, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02162 [49 AD3d 654] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of S & S Pub, Inc., Doing Business as Dublin Pub,Appellant, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Donohue, New York, N.Y. (Scott A. Weiner of counsel), for respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateLiquor Authority dated June 2, 2006, which adopted the recommendation of an AdministrativeLaw Judge dated April 30, 2006, made after a hearing, sustaining charges that the petitioner hadviolated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), directed a 10-day suspension, andimposed a civil penalty in the sum of $6,000.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
Upon judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body following ahearing, this Court's function is limited to consideration of whether the determination issupported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 NY2d 135, 140[1987]; Matter of Alegre Deli v New York State Liq. Auth., 298 AD2d 581, 582 [2002]).The term "substantial evidence" has been held to be a "minimal standard" (Matter of FMCCorp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 188 [1998]; Matter of Café La China Corp. vNew York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280 [2007]). Hearsay evidence is admissible inadministrative proceedings, and may, if sufficiently relevant and probative, constitute substantialevidence (see People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]; Matter ofAbdelrahman v New York State Liq. Auth., 209 AD2d 405, 406 [1994]). Moreover, underappropriate circumstances, hearsay evidence may form the sole basis for an agency's ultimatedetermination (see Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 NY2d 741, 742-743 [1988]; Matterof Ridge, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., [*2]257 AD2d625, 626 [1999]; Matter of A.J. & Taylor Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth., 214 AD2d727 [1995]).
The determination of the respondent New York State Liquor Authority sustaining chargesthat the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1), which prohibits thesale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, is supported by substantial evidence(see Matter of 294 Grand Ave. GroceryCorp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 12 AD3d 521 [2004]; Matter of Oneonta WaterSt. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d 849, 850 [2001]; Matter of Sue'sRendezvous of Westchester v New York State Liq. Auth., 177 AD2d 273; cf. Matter ofVitagliano v State of N.Y. Liq. Auth., 174 AD2d 624 [1991]).
Additionally, the penalty imposed is not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shockingto one's sense of fairness (see Matter ofCantina El Bukis Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 46 AD3d 557, 558 [2007];Matter of Oneonta Water St. v New York State Liq. Auth., 279 AD2d at 851; Matterof Ira Wyman, Inc. v New York State Liq. Auth., 170 AD2d 991 [1991]). Rivera, J.P.,Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.