
    In the Matter of Arlene Botkin, Petitioner, v Cadman Plaza North et al., Respondents.
    [919 NYS2d 10]
   The determination that petitioner engaged in behavior that constituted a nuisance was supported by substantial evidence, including the testimony of a mail carrier, a doorman in the building, and other cooperators, who all described instances of petitioner’s objectionable conduct (see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). There exists no basis to disturb the Hearing Officer’s credibility determinations, including the finding that it was not credible that every witness who testified that petitioner was the aggressor in their interactions with her was mistaken or lying (see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436, 443-444 [1987]).

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.  