BSA rationally relied on its precedent in 15 East 30th Street (BSA Decision, Calendar No.2016–4327–A [Sept. 20, 2017]) to find that when this project vested in 2019, ZR § 12–10, did not provide a basis for rejecting Extell's floor space deductions for mechanical equipment (seeMatter of City Club of N.Y. v. New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 198 A.D.3d 1, 7, 154 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2021] ). That determination by BSA is entitled to substantial deference (seeMatter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v. Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1, 10, 144 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 906, 2021 WL 4097457 [2021] ). To the extent that the May 2021 amendment to ZR § 12–10 articulates a different standard for calculating floor space deductions, assuming without deciding it otherwise applies to this project, the amendment lacks a clear expression as to its retroactive effect.

20, 2017]) to find that when this project vested in 2019, ZR § 12-10, did not provide a basis for rejecting Extell's floor space deductions for mechanical equipment (see Matter of City Club of N.Y. v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 198 A.D.3d 1, 7 [1st Dept 2021]). That determination by BSA is entitled to substantial deference (see Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1, 10 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 906 [2021]). To the extent that the May 2021 amendment to ZR § 12-10 articulates a different standard for calculating floor space deductions, assuming without deciding it otherwise applies to this project, the amendment lacks a clear expression as to its retroactive effect.

The agency warned petitioner at the fourth public hearing, on May 7, 2019, that it needed to solve the noise problem immediately and avoid any noise complaints by the following public hearing on May 21, 2019, yet the noise problem persisted after May 7. Decisions of the BSA are entitled to deference and a court may not substitute its own judgement for the reasoned determination of the board (Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1, 10-11 [1st Dept 2021]).As long as the BSA's determination is not arbitrary and capricious it will not be disturbed by a reviewing court (Matter of Atlantic Outdoor Adv., Inc. v Srinivasan, 110 A.D.3d 598 [1st Dept 2013]).

The agency warned petitioner at the fourth public hearing, on May 7, 2019, that it needed to solve the noise problem immediately and avoid any noise complaints by the following public hearing on May 21, 2019, yet the noise problem persisted after May 7. Decisions of the BSA are entitled to deference and a court may not substitute its own judgement for the reasoned determination of the board (Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 194 AD3d 1, 10-11 [1st Dept 2021]).As long as the BSA's determination is not arbitrary and capricious it will not be disturbed by a reviewing court (Matter of Atlantic Outdoor Adv., Inc. v Srinivasan, 110 AD3d 598 [1st Dept 2013]).

Furthermore, the filing of the deeds for Tax Map Lots 7.1 and 7.2 with the Suffolk County Clerk is of no significance to the claim that Tax Lot 7.2 is a buildable parcel, since county clerks have the ministerial duty to accept deeds (Matter of MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine, 8 N.Y.3d 90 [2006])."[A] county clerk [has] a non-delegable duty of recording and indexing written instruments affecting real property" and consideration as to whether the parcel being conveyed has received subdivision approval "is not required" (11 Ops Counsel SBRPS No 17 [2001]). A tax lot is not synonymous with a buildable lot under zoning regulations (see eg, Matter of Committee for Environmentally Sound Dev. v Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assoc. LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1 [1st Dept 2021]). On the other hand, subdivision maps (also referred to as plats) of parcels located in Suffolk County are to be filed with the County Clerk and can only be accepted if they contain a written endorsement indicating approval by a planning board, of if no planning board, a board of trustees (Real Property Law § 335).

This court denied Respondent's request for injunctive relief several times and the Appellate Division has affirmed: "respondent was not entitled to summary judgment on his counterclaim to enjoin construction" (CUCS Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. IV v. Aymes, 183 A.D.3d 404 [1st Dep't 2020]). As the building has now been completed, the request for an injunction is now moot anyway (see Comm, for Environmentally Sound Dev. v. Amsterdam Ave. Redevelopment Assocs. LLC, 194 A.D.3d 1 [1st Dep't 2021]). To the extent Respondent can still ask for an injunction, the balance of the equities do not favor him.