Respondent's determination that petitioner, inter alia, engaged in gambling activities and undue familiarity with an inmate under his supervision is supported by substantial evidence, and the penalty of dismissal is 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; cf., Trotta v Ward, 77 N.Y.2d 827). There is no merit to petitioner's claim that some of the charges made against him were barred by the 18-month Statute of Limitations set forth in Civil Service Law § 75 (4). The misconduct charged against petitioner constituted the crime of official misconduct (Penal Law § 195.00), and as such, is expressly excluded from the statute.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Rubin and Tom, JJ.