DECISION JUDGMENT
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The determination that the petitioner violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(d) by speeding is supported by substantial evidence ( see Matter of Mataragas v. New York State Dept. of Motor Veh., A.D.3d [2d Dept, Apr. 12, 2004]; Matter of Gentile v. Jackson, 273 A.D.2d 235). The Administrative Law Judge properly relied on the police officer's testimony regarding his visual estimate of the speed of the petitioner's car, which, together with the reading from the laser device in the officer's car, were sufficient to sustain the petitioner's conviction ( see Matter of Neiman v. State of New York Dept. of Motor Vehicles Appeals Bd., 265 A.D.2d 558; Matter of Mataragas v. New York State Dept. of Motor Veh., supra; Matter of Gentile v. Jackson, supra).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, MASTRO and SKELOS, JJ., concur.