Opinion
June 17, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the petitioners' motion which was to remit the matter to the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
Initially, we note that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in remitting this matter without explaining the grounds upon which the remittitur was made. In any event, this matter need not be remitted to the Supreme Court to clarify its order since it is clear that the determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) denying the petitioners' application for a zoning variance was based on substantial evidence in the record as a whole and was neither illegal nor arbitrary and capricious.
As the Board properly determined, the petitioners did not meet the "practical difficulties" requirement contained in New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21 (a). Without the proposed extension, the petitioners are fully capable of utilizing their property within the parameters of the zoning ordinance. The petitioners' desire to increase the number of bedrooms and to add a family room and a deck is a personal objective which is insufficient to meet the "practical difficulties" requirement (see, Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Montalbano v. Silva, 204 A.D.2d 457; Matter of Karneil v. Bennett, 186 A.D.2d 742; Matter of Feit v. Bennett, 168 A.D.2d 495). Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.