Majority
Substantial evidence, namely the testimony of the complainant who was a passenger in petitioner’s vehicle, supported the findings that petitioner exposed himself to the complainant and engaged in lewd behavior as he was driving and that these actions constituted violations of 35 RCNY 6-18 (d) (2) and (i). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations of the hearing officer (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 , 443 [1987]). Petitioner’s argument that revocation of his license was improper because both violations were predicated upon the same findings of fact is unavailing, as either violation, standing alone, warranted the penalty imposed. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
Cases cited
- Berenhaus v. Ward 70 NY2d 436 at 443 p. 473