# Kuhlman v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Brookhaven

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · May 27, 2003 · 305 A.D.2d 683

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6096073

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Philip Kuhlman v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** May 27, 2003
- **Citations:** 305 A.D.2d 683; 759 N.Y.S.2d 896
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 3 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/6096073

## Opinion text

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven dated November 7, 2001, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), entered June 17, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the petition to annul the determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Board) denying the petitioner’s application for area variances. In reaching its determination, the Board engaged in the required balancing test, “weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance [s] [were] granted” (Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 307 [2002], citing Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374, 382, 384 [1995]). Its decision to deny the application was neither illegal, arbitrary, nor an abuse of discretion, and “has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, supra at 308). Santucci, J.P., Friedmann, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6096073. Public record. Not legal advice.