Substantial evidence, including the testimony of a detective who performed a business inspection of petitioner's bar, established that petitioner was in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 by employing an unlicensed security guard. Petitioner offered no testimony or other admissible proof to support its position that the subject employee worked as a busboy and that the investigating detectives mistook him for a security guard. There is, therefore, no basis to disturb the credibility findings of the administrative law judge ( see Matter of Café La China Corp. v New York State Liq. Auth., 43 AD3d 280, 281).
The penalty imposed does not shock our sense of fairness ( See Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 233).