IN RE: YE TRADING NY (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority dated February 5, 2022, as, upon adopting the findings of an administrative law judge dated December 3, 2021, made after a hearing, sustained certain charges against the petitioner, canceled the petitioner's liquor license, and imposed a $1,000 bond claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Denise L. Sher, J.), entered September 19, 2022.  The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, and at which evidence was taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Willis v. New York State Liq. Auth., 118 A.D.3d 1013, 1013–1014, 988 N.Y.S.2d 671 [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “Substantial evidence is ‘such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ ” (id. at 1014, 988 N.Y.S.2d 671, quoting 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183).  In reviewing the penalty imposed by the respondent, the penalty need only be “not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness” (Matter of Cantina El Bukis Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 46 A.D.3d 557, 558, 846 N.Y.S.2d 640).

Here, contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent's determination sustaining six charges that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law §§ 102(3–b) and 105(12) was supported by substantial evidence in the form of the investigator's report and the exhibits thereto (see Matter of Willis v. New York State Liq. Auth., 118 A.D.3d at 1013, 988 N.Y.S.2d 671).  The petitioner offered no evidence to controvert the respondent's showing.

Further, the penalty imposed by the respondent was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see Matter of Cantina El Bukis Corp. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 46 A.D.3d at 558, 846 N.Y.S.2d 640).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, FORD and VENTURA, JJ., concur.