Substantial evidence supports respondent's determination that petitioner willfully and without good cause failed to comply with Work Experience Program (WEP) requirements. That petitioner was not given a job skills assessment or employability plan does not permit his unilateral refusal to participate in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program. We note that such an assessment and plan are not guaranteed to home relief recipients, but are based on available resources ( see, Social Services Law § 335-a; 18 NYCRR 385.4 [a] [3] [ii]). Respondent's interpretation of its regulations is rational and thus will not be disturbed by the judiciary ( see, Palmieri v. Cuomo, 170 A.D.2d 283, 284, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 852). Nor is there any merit to petitioner's claim that respondent discontinued his benefits without considering the acceptability of a substitute. Respondent disallowed substitution of educational or professional training, such as petitioner's Legal Aid internship for the WEP assignment, and that determination is a discretionary one (Social Services Law § 164 SOS [154 Soc. Serv.] [7]; see, Matter of Shakhnovskaya v. Wing, 243 A.D.2d 259), with which we will not interfere. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.