Dewitt v. New York State Board of Law Examiners
Opinion of the Court
We must disagree with petitioner’s contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179 [1978]; Matter of Goldsmith v DeBuono, 245 AD2d 627, 628 [1997]). Here, a proctor testified that she observed petitioner repeatedly craning her neck to look at the exam of the candidate seated next to her during the multiple choice ses
Petitioner’s claim that she was denied due process because she was not provided with the address of the other candidate and the data underlying the report of respondent’s expert are unpreserved for our review as petitioner did not seek a ruling at the hearing on either issue (see Matter of Moro v Mills, 70 AD3d 1269, 1269-1270 [2010]; Matter of Johnson v Department of Correctional Servs., 53 AD3d 746, 747 [2008]; Matter of Brennan v New York State & Local Empls. Retirement Sys., 50 AD3d 1374, 1377 [2008]).
Spain, J.P, Kavanagh, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.