Opinion
May 24, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, the court must conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence on the record when the record is read as a whole ( Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135). In Matter of Sasso v. Osgood ( 86 N.Y.2d 374), the Court of Appeals explained that in making a determination regarding an area variance, a zoning board must "engage in a balancing test, weighing `the benefit to the applicant' against `the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community' if the area variance is granted" ( Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra, at 384, quoting Town Law § 267-b Town[3] [b]). The determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven was supported by substantial evidence and the benefit to the applicant Alexander Baer in approving his application outweighed any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community ( see, Town Law § 267-b Town[3] [h]; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444; Matter of Owens v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 255 A.D.2d 587; Matter of Necker Pottick, Fox Run Woods Bldrs. Corp. v. Duncan, 251 A.D.2d 333; Matter of Frank v. Scheyer, 227 A.D.2d 558).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.