| Matter of Estate of Gravino v Young |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 06169 [75 AD3d 601] |
| July 20, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Estate of Phyllis Gravino, Deceased,Appellant, v Thomas Young et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Paul J. Margiotta, Lindenhurst, N.Y. (Allen E. Huggins of counsel), forrespondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Boardof Appeals of the Town of Babylon dated September 11, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied thepetitioner's application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the SupremeCourt, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated July 27, 2009, which denied the petition and, in effect,dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"Local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances"(Matter of Caspian Realty, Inc. vZoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62, 67 [2009]; see Matter of Inlet Homes Corp. v ZoningBd. of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 769 [2004]; Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals ofTown of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608 [2004]; Matter of Hurley v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 69AD3d 940 [2010]; Matter ofSalzano v Zoning Bd. of Town of Wallkill, 63 AD3d 850 [2009]). Judicial review islimited to determining whether the action taken by the board is illegal, arbitrary and capricious,or an abuse of discretion (see Matter ofAliano v Oliva, 72 AD3d 944 [2010]; Matter of Hurley v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 69AD3d 940 [2010]; Matter ofCaspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62[2009]; Matter of Salzano v Zoning Bd.of Town of Wallkill, 63 AD3d 850 [2009]). A zoning board's determination shall beupheld if it is rational and not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86NY2d 374, 384-385 [1995]; Matter ofAliano v Oliva, 72 AD3d 944 [2010]; Matter of Hurley v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 69AD3d 940 [2010]; Matter ofCaspian Realty, Inc. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Greenburgh, 68 AD3d 62[2009]; Matter of Salzano v Zoning Bd.of Town of Wallkill, 63 AD3d 850 [2009]; Matter of Bassano v Town of Carmel Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 56 AD3d665 [2008]; Matter of Kaufman vIncorporated Vil. of Kings Point, 52 AD3d 604, 608 [2008]; Matter of Enisman v Town ofPoughkeepsie Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 793 [2008]).
Here, the record reveals that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Babylon(hereinafter the ZBA) weighed the relevant statutory factors (see Town Law §267-b [3] [b]). It found that the requested variances would have an adverse impact on thesurrounding neighborhood and that the petitioner's alleged difficulty was self-created, given thatthe petitioner's sole beneficiary also owned the neighboring 4,000 square-foot lot. Thedetermination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Hurleyv Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Amityville, 69 AD3d [*2]940 [2010]; Matter of Salzano v Zoning Bd. of Town of Wallkill, 63 AD3d 850[2009]; Matter of Enisman v Town ofPoughkeepsie Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 AD3d 793 [2008]). Moreover, the petitionerfailed to establish that in essentially similar situations, the ZBA had granted variances to others(see Matter of Crilly v Karl, 67AD3d 793 [2009]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, ineffect, dismissed the proceeding. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.