Opinion
July 1, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Although a zoning board's interpretation of a zoning ordinance is entitled to deference, its interpretation is "`not entitled to unquestioning judicial deference, since the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the law is with the court'" ( Matter of Tallini v. Rose, 208 A.D.2d 546-547, quoting Matter of Exxon Corp. v. Board of Stds. Appeals, 128 A.D.2d 289, 296; see also, Matter of Chrysler Realty Corp. v. Orneck, 196 A.D.2d 631).
As the Supreme Court observed, the interpretation of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of North Castle of the zoning ordinance's reference to automobile repair work as excluding auto body work would have prohibited an auto body shop in an industrial zone, while such a use would be permitted in the more restrictive general business zone ( see, Town of North Castle Zoning Code §§ 213-20 [Schedule of Business District Regulations], 213-21 [Schedule of Office and Industrial District Regulations, Part 2]). Because any ambiguity in zoning regulations must be resolved in favor of the property owner ( see, Matter of Allen v. Adami, 39 N.Y.2d 275, 277; Matter of Chrysler Realty Corp. v. Orneck, supra, at 632-633; Matter of Barkus v. Kern, 160 A.D.2d 694, 695-696), the court's rejection of the board's interpretation was proper under the circumstances.
We have considered the appellants' remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Miller, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.