Petitioner seeks a review under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act of a determination of the Board of Regents which suspended his license to practice dentistry for six months on each of two charges to which he pleaded guilty, the sentences to run concurrently, because of his issuance of two false affidavits of dental service alleged to have been rendered. It appears from the record that the petitioner admitted all of the charges as true and that the purpose of the hearing before the Board of Regents was to offer testimony in mitigation of the punishment and we consider that the only issue before us on this appeal. On the oral argument, it appeared to be the contention of the petitioner that because this case was associated with the Arkwright investigation that the punishment was automatic and of greater severity than usual. If the identical facts were associated with an isolated investigation, we would not decide that the punishment as rendered herein was an abuse of discretion. The question of punishment and its mitigation is primarily one for the consideration of the Board of Regents and we find in this case that it was not excessive or an abuse of discretion. Determination unanimously confirmed, without costs.