Opinion
October 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of 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, 202 A.D.2d 674). To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, the court must conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence on the record when read as a whole ( see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135). In Matter of Sasso v. Osgood ( 86 N.Y.2d 374), the Court of Appeals explained that in making a determination, a zoning board must "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 area variance is granted" ( Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra, at 384). The record demonstrates that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Babylon was not supported by substantial evidence and that the benefit to the petitioner outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community ( see, Town Law § 267-b [b]; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444, supra; Matter of Frank v. Scheyer, 227 A.D.2d 558; Matter of Marcello v. Humenick, 222 A.D.2d 677, 678; Cange v. Scheyer, 146 A.D.2d 594, 594-595).
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.