The uncontroverted evidence that petitioner had contracted to sell the licensed premises and that the vendee was in possession of and operating the premises without petitioner's involvement constituted substantial evidence which "`"a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support"'" respondent's determination that the vendee had been permitted to avail himself of petitioner's license in violation of Matter of Dumbarton Oaks Rest. Bar v New York State Liq. Auth. ( 58 N.Y.2d 89, 93, quoting Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 N.Y. 256, 274). Petitioner cannot rely on the lack of documentary evidence as to the arrangements between himself and the vendee, where such, if it exists, was in petitioner's power to provide. Revocation was not an inappropriate penalty for the violations (supra).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.