At the hearing, it was brought out that Police Officer John Orosz, was only days away from his twenty-first birthday when he went into petitioner's premises. He testified he ordered a "drink" for which he paid. However, the officer could not recall what the drink was which he ordered or which was served to him or even how much he paid for it. Further, the officer was not asked whether he tasted the "drink", what container or bottle it was poured from or even if the officer knew what an alcoholic beverage tasted or looked like.
We find, therefore, from perusal of the complete record, that the determination of the respondent that an underage police officer purchased an alcoholic beverage at the subject premises was not sustained by substantial evidence at the hearing. "A finding is supported by the evidence only when the evidence is so substantial that from it an inference of the existence of the fact found may be drawn reasonably. A mere scintilla of evidence sufficient to justify a suspicion is not sufficient to support a finding upon which legal rights and obligations are based" (Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 273-274).
Accordingly, we grant the petition to the extent of annulling and vacating the determination of the respondent and the penalty imposed, and remand for such further proceedings as necessary.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.