Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
The record contains substantial evidence to support the respondent's determination that the petitioner violated Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 (1). Although the respondent relied on hearsay statements that minors purchased alcoholic beverages at the petitioner's establishment, hearsay evidence is admissible in administrative proceedings and may, if sufficiently probative, constitute substantial evidence. In addition, under appropriate circumstances, statements from witnesses absent from the hearing may form the sole basis for an agency's ultimate determination (see, Matter of Gray v Adduci, 73 N.Y.2d 741; Matter of Harry's Chenango Wine Liq. v State Liq. Auth., 158 A.D.2d 804). Here, the statements of two minors that they purchased beer from the petitioner are sufficiently probative, and this evidence was not rebutted by the petitioner. Under these circumstances there was substantial evidence to support the respondent's determination (see, Matter of Harry's Chenango Wine Liq. v State Liq. Auth., supra).
We reject the petitioner's contention that there was an unreasonable delay in commencing and conducting the administrative hearing as the record does not support the conclusion that the petitioner incurred substantial prejudice (see, State Administrative Procedure Act § 301; Matter of Cortlandt Nursing Home v Axelrod, 66 N.Y.2d 169, cert denied 476 U.S. 1115).
Finally, in light of all the circumstances, the sanction imposed was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.