Opinion
November 30, 1987
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) is supported by substantial evidence in the record and must be confirmed (see, Matter of McKenzie v Fisher, 39 N.Y.2d 103). The petitioner's challenge to the administrative determination rests primarily upon an issue of credibility which was for the hearing body to resolve (see, Matter of Silberfarb v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 N.Y.2d 979; Matter of Collins v. Codd, 38 N.Y.2d 269, 270-271). The testimony of the police officer who issued the summons to the petitioner was not incredible as a matter of law, and was sufficient by itself to sustain the respondent's burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 227) that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 (d) (1) by driving his vehicle through a steady red signal.
We further find that the petitioner was accorded a fair and full review upon his administrative appeal before the respondent. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.