In reviewing an administrative determination, we are limited to an examination of whether there was substantial evidence to support the determination and whether the administrative body abused its discretion or acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 231-232).
Here, the evidence at the hearing consisted primarily of eyewitness testimony. In a case where credibility is the central issue, great weight is given to the Hearing Officer's findings in determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the charges (see, Matter of Simpson v. Wolansky, 38 N.Y.2d 391, 394; Matter of Lawrence v. Weinstein, 181 A.D.2d 888, 889). The Commissioner's determination that the petitioner verbally abused a patient, left her unit without permission, behaved rudely to a visitor, and was insubordinate, was supported by substantial evidence. The penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to shock one's sense of fairness (see, Matter of Moccio v. State of New York, 200 A.D.2d 574; Matter of Lawrence v Weinstein, supra). Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.