A fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Charles J. Hecht, P. C. v. Clowes, 224 A.D.2d 312) supports the trial court's credibility determination that defendant's reasons for terminating plaintiff's residency, primarily clinical incompetence, were not a pretext for retaliation motivated by her complaints of illegally excessive hours in violation of 10 NYCRR 405.4 (b) (6). In any event, plaintiff failed to establish an actual violation of the regulation necessary to sustain a cause of action under Labor Law § 740 ( Bordell v. General Elec. Co., 88 N.Y.2d 869). We have considered plaintiff's remaining claims of breach of contract and exclusion of relevant evidence and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.