| Matter of DeCillis v Grannis |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00510 [69 AD3d 851] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Thomas M. DeCillis et al.,Petitioners, v Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner of New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and DianaR.H. Winters of counsel), for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Alexander B. Grannis,Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the NewYork State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated August 28, 2007, which, after ahearing, denied the petitioners' application for an area variance.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, andat which evidence is taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantialevidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176,179 [1978]). Substantial evidence "means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may acceptas adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div.of Human Rights, 45 NY2d at 180; see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436,443 [1987]; Matter of Venditti v NewYork State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 57 AD3d 685, 686 [2008]). "In the finalanalysis, it is not the function of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence or substitute its ownjudgment for that of an administrative body to whose expertise a subject matter has beenentrusted, but rather to determine whether there is a reasonable fulcrum of support in the recordto sustain the body's findings" (Matterof Bradley Corporate Park v Crotty, 39 AD3d 632, 634 [2007] [citations and internalquotation marks omitted]).
Here, the petitioners submitted an application for an area variance allowing them tosubdivide their property, which was located in the Nissequogue River recreational river corridorand thus fell within the purview of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System (seeECL 15-2701 et seq.), into lots smaller than the required minimum of two acres(see 6 NYCRR 666.13 [C] [2] [b], note [iii]). Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, thedetermination of the respondent Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner of the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation, inter alia, that the [*2]development would result in adverse environmental impacts withinthe river corridor was supported by substantial evidence (see 6 NYCRR 666.9 [a] [2]).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Miller, Chambersand Roman, JJ., concur.