From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Toussie v. Trotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 2001
283 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued April 12, 2001.

May 7, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven dated July 21, 1999, denying an application for, inter alia, an area variance, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated February 1, 2000, which denied the petition.

Forchelli, Curto, Schwartz, Mineo, Carlino Cohn, LLP, Mineola, N Y (Joseph F. Buzzell and James A. Boglioli of counsel), for appellant.

Annette Eaderesto, Town Attorney, Medford, N.Y. (Caren L. Loguercio of counsel), for respondents.

Before: ALTMAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a board of zoning appeals, judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Smith v. Board of Appeals of Town of Islip, 202 A.D.2d 674). To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, the court must conclude that the determination was not supported by substantial evidence on the record when read as a whole (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, supra).

In Matter of Sasso v. Osgood ( 86 N.Y.2d 374), the Court of Appeals explained that Town Law § 267-b(3)(b) requires a zoning board to engage in a 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 is granted (Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra, at 384). The Supreme Court properly concluded that the respondents, in making their determination, properly applied Town Law § 267-b(3)(b). The record establishes that the determination denying the variance was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, supra; Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309).


Summaries of

Matter of Toussie v. Trotta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 7, 2001
283 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Toussie v. Trotta

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT I. TOUSSIE, APPELLANT, v. FRANK C. TROTTA, ETC.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 7, 2001

Citations

283 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
723 N.Y.S.2d 890

Citing Cases

In re Appl. of Olson v. Scheyer

as solely the result of general community opposition ( cf.Matter of Hugel vCampbell, 276 AD2d 488, 713 NYS2d…