-3-515101conducted an audit of the approximately 140 files assigned tosuch probation officer, which resulted in the discovery ofadditional deficiencies and omissions. As a result, petitioner
was charged in March 2011 with incompetence and suspended withoutpay. Following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, theHearing Officer issued a 50-page decision, wherein he sustainedthe bulk of the specifications and recommended petitioner's"dismissal from service [as] the only viable solution."Respondent Saratoga County Administrator thereafter adoptedthe Hearing Officer's recommendation, found petitioner guilty ofthe overall charge of incompetence and terminated her employment.In response, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceedingseeking, among other things, reinstatement as deputy director ofthe Department and back pay. Supreme Court subsequentlytransferred the proceeding to this Court pursuant to CPLR 7804(g). We confirm. "[T]he standard of review to be applied inreviewing an administrative determination made pursuant to CivilService Law § 75 is whether the determination is supported bysubstantial evidence" in the record as a whole (Matter of Lory vCounty of Washington, 77 AD3d 1265, 1266 ; see Matter ofJames v Hoosick Falls Cent. School Dist., 93 AD3d 1131, 1132-1133; Matter of Covert v Schuyler County, 78 AD3d 1309, 1310, lv denied 16 NY3d 706 ). Credibilitydeterminations lie "solely within the province of the HearingOfficer" (Matter of Perryman v Village of Saranac Lake, 64 AD3d830, 835 ) and, to that end, "this Court may neithersubstitute its own judgment for that of the Hearing Officer norrecidivism rate and, therefore, posed a significant risk topublic safety.This probation officer was counseled, given additional
training and reassigned to a new supervisor, who conducted acase-by-case review of the probation officer's files and assistedhim in prioritizing the work to be accomplished. As a result ofthese efforts, all of the "major issues" with such files wereresolved within three months.