Opinion
April 13, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Huntington that the petitioners' proposed business use of their residential property was not "similar * * * by reason of education, training and experience" to those home occupations which are set forth in the zoning ordinance at issue was neither unreasonable, irrational, nor an improvident exercise of discretion ( see, Matter of Frishman v. Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823; Matter of Simon v. Board of Appeals, 208 A.D.2d 931; Corter v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 46 A.D.2d 184).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.