Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.
It is well established that judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 of an administrative determination is limited, and a factual determination will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the record contains evidence to support a contrary conclusion (see, Matter of Rivera [State Line Delivery Serv. — Roberts], 69 N.Y.2d 679, cert denied 481 U.S. 1049; Matter of Silberfarb v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 60 N.Y.2d 979; Matter of Fazio v. Joy, 58 N.Y.2d 674; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176; Matter of Breger v. Macri, 34 N.Y.2d 727; Matter of Colton v. Berman, 21 N.Y.2d 322; Matter of Richcar Tavern v. New York State Liq. Auth., 160 A.D.2d 881; Matter of Almo v. Shaffer, 149 A.D.2d 417). Issues of credibility are for the administrative agency to determine (see, Matter of Belnord Holding Corp. v. Joy, 73 A.D.2d 549, affd 52 N.Y.2d 945).
Each of the charges and specifications levied against the petitioner was amply supported by substantial evidence adduced and there is no support for the petitioner's speculative claims that he was being punished for bringing a previous proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging the respondent's authority to direct the manner in which he provided treatment to County patients. In this regard, we note that we previously determined, as a matter of law, that the respondent had the authority to direct the manner in which the petitioner performed his duties, and that the petitioner's arguments set forth in the instant proceeding virtually mirror those propounded and rejected earlier (see, Carlen v. Harris, 140 A.D.2d 288). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.