Opinion
April 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.).
Our review of the respondent State agency's determination is limited to an evaluation of whether, on the entire record, the determination is supported by substantial evidence defined as, "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176, 180). Where substantial evidence is present a reviewing Court may not re-evaluate the evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the agency (State Div. of Human Rights v Columbia Univ., 39 N.Y.2d 612, 616, cert denied sub nom. Gilinsky v Columbia Univ., 429 U.S. 1096; Matter of Collins v Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269, 270-271). Upon our review of this record, in accordance with the abovestated law, we find that substantial evidence exists to support the respondents' determination that this petitioner willfully failed to comply with the requirements of the JOBS program. The record does not support the petitioner's claim that she was told that the submission of proof of summer enrollment in the Fashion Institute of Technology would excuse her from compliance with the program.
We have reviewed the other arguments made by the petitioner and find them to be either unpersuasive or lacking in merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.