Opinion
March 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Edith Miller, J.].
The present proceeding was improperly transferred to this Court, since the evidence submitted in connection with the zoning applications had not had the benefit of clarification at an evidentiary hearing (Matter of Save the Pine Bush v. Planning Bd., 83 A.D.2d 741). However, the record enables us to conclude whether the administrative action was arbitrary and capricious (Matter of Kidd-Kott Constr. Co. v. Lillis, 124 A.D.2d 996; Seaview Assn. v. Department of Envtl. Conservation, 123 A.D.2d 619). We note that the parties did not object to the transfer, and so must be deemed to accept the record evidence in its present state. The administrative agency noted all relevant areas of environmental concern, and it relied on studies, submitted with the environmental assessment, which were commissioned for the most relevant potential impacts, traffic and air quality. We find no basis to reject the methodology, data, or conclusions of those studies, which indicated the lack of significant environmental impacts, and consequently we find no basis to conclude that the agency acted arbitrarily and capriciously in not directing the applicant to prepare an environmental impact statement. Nor have petitioners submitted record evidence indicating that the agency's environmental review otherwise was deficient.
For similar reasons, we find no basis to disturb the resolution to the extent that it granted special permits upon the applicant's satisfaction of the criteria set forth in section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution. Since the present applicant was not responsible for the original placement of the existing building in a corner of the site, leaving an L-shaped lot, it did not, to this extent, cause the hardship which warrants the special permit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.