It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the determination terminating his employment as Chief of Police for respondent City of Oswego following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75. We conclude that the determination is supported by the requisite substantial evidence, i.e., "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" ( 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180; see CPLR 7803; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 230-231), and we therefore may not substitute our judgment for that of respondent Mayor ( see generally Matter of Barhite v Village of Medina, 23 AD3d 1114, 1115). We further conclude that the penalty of termination does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law, i.e., it is not "`so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness'" ( Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, 38; Matter of Smeraldo v Rater, 55 AD3d 1298, 1299). "`A police force is a quasi-military organization demanding strict discipline'" ( Matter of Panek v Bennett, 38 AD3d 1251, 1252) and, "[i]n matters concerning police discipline, `great leeway' must be accorded to . . . determinations concerning the appropriate punishment" ( Kelly, 96 NY2d at 38).