Opinion

Vette Realty, Inc. v. Board of Appeals

  • 51 A.D.3d 938
  • 856 N.Y.S.2d 873
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
May 20, 2008
Status
Published
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 57.4%

The opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream dated September 20, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s applications for certain area variances and final site plan approval, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated April 18, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” (Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d 608, 613 [2004] [citations omitted]). A determination of a zoning board should be sustained on judicial review if it has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 385 [1995]; Matter of Zupa v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Southold, 31 AD3d 570 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 770 [2005]).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the Board of Appeals of the Village of Valley Stream (hereinafter the Board) engaged in the required balancing test and considered the relevant statutory factors (see Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d at 384 ; Village Law § 7-712-b [3] [b]). The record indicates that the Board’s determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Pecoraro v Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 NY3d at 614-615 ; Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 *939 NY2d 374 [1995]; Matter of Martino v Board of Zoning Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Great Neck Plaza, 26 AD3d 382, 383 [2006]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d at 770-773 ).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. Prudenti, EJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.