—[*1]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, dated December 27, 2004, which affirmed a decision of an Administrative Law Judge, made after a hearing, denying the petitioner's application for a private investigator's license.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed, with costs.

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health, 90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]). Substantial evidence has been defined as "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Moreover, "[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists" (Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland, 282 NY 256, 267 [1940]; see Matter of Superior Officers Assn. of Police Dept. of County of Nassau, Inc. v State of N.Y. Pub. Empl. Relations Bd., 23 AD3d 481 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]).

The petitioner sought a license as a private investigator, but his application was denied after a hearing by the Division of Licensing Services, and the denial was affirmed by the designee of the Secretary of State. [*2]

Because the petitioner was never an investigator for the state police, a city or county police department, a state agency, or a private investigator, and he was not a police officer or fire marshal for 20 years, he could obtain a private investigator's license only if he had "equivalent position and experience" (General Business Law § 72 [1]; see 19 NYCRR 172.1). Although the petitioner conducted investigations for his employer over a period of many years, and an additional, personal, investigation into the whereabouts of a certain person, those investigations were never "conducted on a full-time basis in a position the primary duties of which were to conduct investigations and same comprised the major portion of [the petitioner's] activities therein." (Id.) Consequently, the investigations did not qualify the petitioner for a license as a private investigator under the statute and regulation, and the determination to deny the petitioner's application for a private investigator's license was supported by substantial evidence. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.