Opinion
February 27, 2001.
Determinations of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals dated January 19, 1999 and November 16, 1999, which approved the applications of the developer respondents to construct residential housing in an area zoned for manufacturing use, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.] entered on or about May 12, 2000), dismissed, without costs.
Raun J. Rasmussen, for petitioners.
Ellen B. Fishman and Scott E. Mollen, for respondents.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.,
Initially, insofar as a determination of a zoning board, such as that of respondent BSA in the present case, is an administrative rather than quasi-judicial proceeding (Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384, n. 2), and as such required judicial review in Supreme Court, this matter was improperly transferred to us. Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we will decide the matter on its merits (Supkis v. Town of Sand Lake Zoning Board of Appeals, 227 A.D.2d 779, 780). Having done so, we confirm. Petitioners are various residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn where a developer sought and acquired a variance to construct residential units in an area zoned M1-2 to allow light-medium manufacturing uses. They raise numerous challenges to the variance under the five-part test set forth in the New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21. However, under the standards articulated by the Court of Appeals in Soho Alliance v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (___ N Y 2d ___, 2000 N Y LEXIS 3568), "it cannot be said that there was an absence of substantial evidence to support the Board's findings as to each of the five requirements necessary to issue the proposed use variances here" (id.).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.