Although it was error for the IAS court to entertain the substantial evidence question instead of transferring the proceeding as required by CPLR 7804 (g), this court may address that question upon a de novo review of the record (Matter of King v McMickens, 120 A.D.2d 351, affd 69 N.Y.2d 840, rearg denied 69 N.Y.2d 985). Upon such review, we find that respondent's determination to revoke petitioner's pistol license is supported by substantial evidence, including proof that petitioner showed poor judgment in the manner in which he carried the weapon and when questioned by the police about the gun he falsely denied possessing a second loaded gun. Also noted by us is petitioner's lack of candor and cooperation at the three administrative hearings preceding revocation. We also conclude that the penalty of revocation is not so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience (Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.