# Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · March 21, 2005 · 16 A.D.3d 591

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5683430

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Donald Schneider v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** March 21, 2005
- **Citations:** 16 A.D.3d 591; 792 N.Y.S.2d 153; 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2979
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5683430

## Opinion text

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, dated June 19, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), entered October 6, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Supreme Court properly sustained the determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington (hereinafter the Zoning Board) denying the petitioner’s application for an area variance. The determination was rationally based and was supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374 , 384 n 2 [1995]). Further, the determination of the Zoning Board was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra). Florio, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5683430. Public record. Not legal advice.