Opinion
2002-08420.
December 29, 2003.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent Board of Appeals of the Town of Haverstraw dated March 13, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for multiple area variances, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), dated August 20, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Bertine, Hufnagel, Headley, Zeltner, Drummond Dohn, LLP, Scarsdale, N.Y. (Richard M. Gardella of counsel), for appellants.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Gary J. O'Donnell of counsel), for respondents.
Before: HOWARD MILLER and SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
A court will apply the zoning ordinance currently in existence at the time a decision is rendered unless "special facts" are present to demonstrate that the municipality acted in bad faith and unduly delayed acting upon an application while the zoning law was being changed ( Matter of Pokoik v. Silsdorf, 40 N.Y.2d 769; Matter of Sexton v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Oyster Bay, 300 A.D.2d 494, 496). Contrary to the appellants' contention, there are no special facts in this case that would warrant an exception to the general rule ( see Matter of Home Depot U.S.A. v. Village of Rockville Ctr., 295 A.D.2d 426, 428; Wiehe v. Town of Babylon, 169 A.D.2d 728, 729; cf. Matter of Miller v. Southhold Town, 190 A.D.2d 672; Matter of Huntington Ready-Mix Concrete v. Town of Southampton, 112 A.D.2d 161, 162-163).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., LUCIANO, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.