DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An appointing authority has wide discretion in determining the fitness of candidates (see Matter of Needleman v. County of Rockland, 270 A.D.2d 423; Matter of Havern v. Senko, 210 A.D.2d 480; Matter of Metzger v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm., 54 A.D.2d 565). Such discretion is particularly broad in the hiring of law enforcement officers, to whom high standards may be applied (see Matter of Havern v. Senko, supra). As long as the administrative determination is not irrational or arbitrary, this court will not interfere with that determination (see Matter of Choset v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm., 199 A.D.2d 264; Matter of Metzger v. Nassau County Civ. Serv. Comm., supra).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondents did not act irrationally or arbitrarily in deciding to eliminate him from further consideration for appointment as a police officer based on his failure to pass a polygraph examination (see Matter of Needleman v. County of Rockland, supra; Matter of Conlon v. Commissioner of Civ. Serv. of County of Suffolk, 225 A.D.2d 766, Matter of Brussel v. LoGrande, 137 A.D.2d 686). The opinion of the petitioner's expert polygraph examiner that the exam was tainted or incorrectly administered was speculative and conclusory, and was "devoid of any reference to a foundational scientific basis" (Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444, 452; Clarke v. Helene Curtis, Inc., 293 A.D.2d 701).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.