Opinion
2002-05363
Argued January 23, 2003.
February 13, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York dated January 29, 2002, as, after a hearing, imposed a condition upon the granting of a use variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated May 3, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Sheldon Lobel Associates, New York, N.Y. (Eric Palatnik and Jacalyn R. Fleming of counsel), for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Stephen J. McGrath and Alan Beckoff of counsel), for respondents.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, upon granting the requested use variance, the Board of Standards and Appeals for the City of New York (hereinafter the Board) properly limited the proposed hours of operation of the appellants' store so that the retail use conformed to the character of the surrounding retail and residential neighborhood (see Matter of St. Onge v. Donovan, 71 N.Y.2d 507, 516-518; Matter of Dexter v. Town Bd. of Town of Gater, 36 N.Y.2d 102, 105; New York City Zoning Resolution §§ 21-00[c], [i]; 72-21[c]; 72-22; cf. Province of Meribah Socy. of Mary v. Village of Muttontown, 148 A.D.2d 512). Since the Board's determination was based upon substantial evidence in the record and had a rational basis, the Supreme Court properly upheld the determination (see Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Matter of DaSilva v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mineola, 266 A.D.2d 458, 459).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.