Opinion
August 21, 1989
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondent's determination finding that he demonstrated incompetence and untrustworthiness (see, Real Property Law § 441-c) is rational and supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, e.g., Matter of Facey v. Department of State, 132 A.D.2d 698; Matter of Nevada Realty Corp. v. Paterson, 90 A.D.2d 485). The hearing evidence, including the petitioner's own testimony, establishes that he submitted and certified as true an application for a real estate broker license which contained numerous blatantly false statements regarding his degree of participation in various real estate transactions. Although the petitioner maintains that these statements merely resulted from oversight or neglect on his part, the issue of the petitioner's credibility was for the trier of fact, and his determination that the petitioner's explanation was not credible is amply supported by the evidence (see, Matter of Martin v. Adduci, 138 A.D.2d 599; Matter of Facey v. Department of State, supra). Accordingly, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the challenged determination.
Additionally, under all the circumstances presented, we do not find the penalty imposed to be so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Kostika v Cuomo, 41 N.Y.2d 673; see, e.g., Matter of Benvenuto v. Suffolk County Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 144 A.D.2d 455; Matter of Eich v. Shaffer, 136 A.D.2d 701; Matter of Gibralter Auto Servs. v State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 134 A.D.2d 590). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.