The instant proceeding stems from repair work performed by the petitioner upon an automobile which had been damaged after it had been stolen. The record of the administrative hearing clearly established, inter alia, that the petitioner failed to provide quality repairs, since, when the complainant took possession of his automobile, its frame, hood, and wheels were misaligned and its brakes, inter alia, did not operate properly. Furthermore, the petitioner represented in its invoice that it had replaced certain parts with new parts which in fact were not replaced or were replaced with used parts. Such misrepresentations about repairs performed constituted substantial evidence that the petitioner engaged in a fraudulent and deceptive practice (see, Matter of Lyon Coram Auto Body v New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 147 A.D.2d 564). Since the determination was supported by substantial evidence, that determination may not be disturbed (see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135, 140; 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 N.Y.2d 176).
Furthermore, we cannot agree with the petitioner that the measure of punishment imposed upon it was so disproportionate to the charge sustained "`"`as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness'"'" (Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg, 47 N.Y.2d 354, 360, quoting Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222, 233).
We have examined the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.