Summary
In Lyons, the Second Department held that, under an analogous provision of the Used Car Lemon Law (General Business Law § 198-b [c] [2] [b]), once a car had been out of service for 15 days, a presumption arose that the manufacturer was afforded a reasonable number of attempts to repair the defect, regardless of "whether the car was presently operable" (272 AD2d at 397).
Summary of this case from DaimlerChrysler v. SpitzerOpinion
Argued March 23, 2000.
May 8, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Standards of Appeals of the City of New York, dated December 8, 1998, which, after a hearing, granted the application for a zoning variance of a nonparty whose property adjoins that of the petitioner, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 30, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Stahl Zelmanovitz, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Sharyn Rootenberg of counsel), for respondents.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is a "well-established rule that local zoning boards have discretion in considering applications for variances and the judicial function is a limited one. A zoning board determination should not be aside unless there is a showing of illegality, arbitrariness or abuse of discretion * * * That is to say, the determination of responsible local officials in the affected community will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; see, Matter of Frishman v. Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823; Matter of Richard Dudyshyn Contr. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Mount Pleasant, 255 A.D.2d 445; Epstein v. Board of Appeals of Vil. of Kensington, 222 A.D.2d 396).
The respondents' determination to grant the requested variance was rational and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court properly denied the petition.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., FRIEDMANN, McGINITY and SMITH, JJ., concur.