Substantial evidence supports respondent's finding that petitioner's admitted failure, in his first official departmental interview, to give an accurate account of his role in the matter under investigation was not due to the faulty recollection he claimed in his second interview and in the disciplinary proceeding, but was rather a deliberate falsehood likely intended to protect a fellow officer who was dismissed from the force between petitioner's two interviews. No basis exists to disturb respondent's findings of credibility (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444). The penalty of dismissal does not shock our sense of fairness (cf., Matter of Donofrio v. City of Rochester, 144 A.D.2d 1027, 1028-1029).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.