MATTER OF MIKOLESKI v. BRATTON

Substantial evidence supports respondent's findings, which in large part turned on witness credibility ( see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444), and the penalties of dismissal and loss of pension do not shock our sense of fairness ( see, Trotta v. Ward, 77 N.Y.2d 827). Petitioner's claim that the disciplinary proceeding was not timely commenced within the 18-month period prescribed by Civil Service Law § 75 (4) is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief, and in any event without merit. The relevant measuring date is service of the first set of charges and specifications ( see, Matter of Nagle v. Bratton, 245 A.D.2d 122).

Concur — Lerner, P.J., Sullivan, Milonas, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.