Opinion
January 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner failed to prove that he would suffer significant economic harm or other practical difficulty if his application for area variances were denied (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 910; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702). The Board's findings that there was no showing of practical difficulty, that the proposed 3,200-square-foot construction would be disproportionate to the petitioner's quarter-acre plot and that the proposed expansion would adversely impact on the neighboring quarter-acre plots are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the denial of the application was not arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.