In order to annul an administrative determination rendered following a hearing, a court must conclude that the record lacked substantial evidence to support that determination ( see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140; Matter of Alfano v. New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 227 A.D.2d 474; Matter of Earles v Pine Bush Cent. School Dist., 224 A.D.2d 524, 524-525; see also, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 444; Matter of Kenneth VV. v. Wing, 231 A.D.2d 1007; Matter of Lawrence v. Weinstein, 181 A.D.2d 888). Moreover, it is the function of the administrative agency or the Hearing Officer, not the reviewing court, to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses and determine which testimony to accept and which to reject ( see, Matter of Silberfarb v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 N.Y.2d 979, 981).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the testimony of those students involved in the altercation which led up to the suspension of Rasleen Sahni provided ample evidence to support the respondents' determination that Ms. Sahni struck another student.
Further, contrary to the petitioner's contention, hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings and may serve as the basis for an administrative determination ( see, Matter of Gray v. Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741; Matter of Nieto v. DeBuono, 231 A.D.2d 573; Matter of Andresen v. State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 227 A.D.2d 617). In any event, the record is clear that the Hearing Officer did not base his determination on the alleged hearsay evidence.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.