dations, and the Commissioner of Education issued an order to that effect. Thereafter the parties stipulated to withdraw the finding of negligence or incompetence on more than one occasion, leaving only the finding of unprofessional conduct for failure to keep patient records as required under 8 NYCRR 29.2 (3). Petitioner seeks review, contending that the finding of unprofessional conduct is not supported by substantial evidence and that the measure of discipline imposed was disproportionate and excessive. Petitioner’s four patient records at issue here each contain only sparse information. For example, they contain no notations concerning blood pressure or body weight, no results of a physical exam, no laboratory test reports. Petitioner testified that it was his policy to note “only unusual and exceptional matters” on these cards. Thus, if a patient’s record contains nothing about the patient’s history, physical exam, abnormalities, or the procedure that was performed, this indicates to petitioner that all these matters were “normal”. Petitioner claims that the records, thus interpreted, are accurate reflections of his evaluation and treatment of each patient, and that accuracy, not adequacy, is all that is required in patient records under 8 NYCRR 29.2 (3). In other words, he contends that the regulation is satisfied if objectively inadequate records are accurate when interpreted by the treating physician. This contention is clearly without merit. The purpose of the recordkeeping requirement is, at least in part, to provide meaningful medical information to other practitioners should the patient transfer to a new physician or should the treating physician be unavailable for any reason. Petitioner’s records certainly do not meet this standard of objectively meaningful medical information. Even petitioner’s own witness, Dr. Merendino, when asked if petitioner’s method of record keeping reflected the evaluation and treatment of a patient, replied that if he were just to look at one of petitioner’s records, without any explanation or interpretation from petitioner, “I don’t think I’d get too much information from it.” Furthermore, unprofessional conduct is also defined as including failure to make a patient’s records available to succeeding practitioners, after a proper request (8 NYCRR 29.2 [6]). Inadequate records clearly would make this requirement to provide records to other medical personnel meaningless. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, a patient record so sparse as to be accurate and meaningful only to the recording physician fails to meet the intent of the requirement to maintain records which “accurately reflects the evaluation and treatment of the patient” (8 NYCRR 29.2 [3]). We find that the determination of unprofessional conduct is supported by substantial evidence (see
Matter of Jay v Board of Regents, 50 AD2d 967 ;
Matter of Snyder v Board of Regents, 50 AD2d 966 ). Petitioner also contends that the measure of discipline imposed is excessive because at the time it was assessed an additional charge was being considered, which was later withdrawn by stipulation. However, identical sanctions were imposed on each charge, to run concurrently, and petitioner is still subject to the same penalty on the remaining charge
(Matter of Turley v Board of Regents, 54 AD2d 1020 ). Moreover, we find the measure of discipline here neither disproportionate to the offense nor shocking to our sense of fairness
(Matter of Pell v Board ofEduc., 34 NY2d 222 , 233). Petitioner’s remaining points are without merit. Therefore, the board’s determination should not be disturbed. Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.