The Court of Appeals stated in Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 NY2d 222, 231;
"the arbitrary or capricious test chiefly "relates to whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified... and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.' (1 NY Jur., Administrative Law, § 184). Arbitrary action is without sound
basis in reason and is generally taken without regard to the facts."
A court may overturn an administrative action only if the record reveals no rational or reasonable basis for it. The reviewing court does not examine the facts de novo to reach an independent determination. Marsh v. Hanley, 50 AD2d 687. Moreover, the reviewing court "may not substitute its own judgment of the evidence for that of the administrative agency, but should review the whole record to determine whether there exists a rational basis to support the findings upon which the agency's determination is predicated." Purdy v. Kreisberg, 47 NY2d 354, 358. Indeed, "[t]he determination of an agency, acting pursuant to its authority and in its area of expertise, is entitled to deference." Nelson v. Roberts, 304 AD2d 20.
A rational or reasonable basis for an administrative agency determination exists if there is evidence in the record to support its conclusion. Sewell v. City of New York, 182 AD2d, appeal [*4]denied, 80 NY2d 756. Unless the reviewing court finds that the agency
acted in excess of its jurisdiction, in violation of a lawful procedure, arbitrarily, or in abuse of its discretion, the court has no alternative but to confirm the agency's decision. (See, Pell v. Bd. of Educ., 34 NY2d 222 at 231.)