Opinion
November 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
The IAS Court having improperly entertained the issue of substantial evidence (CPLR 7804 [g]), this Court will treat the substantial evidence issue de novo and determine the proceeding as if it had been properly transferred ( Matter of 902 Assocs. v. New York City Loft Bd., 229 A.D.2d 351). Respondent's determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate that they satisfied all of the requirements of section 72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution ( see, Matter of Russo v. Board of Estimate, 84 A.D.2d 842) is supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 598-599), including the record of the public hearings that were held on petitioners' application for a variance. With respect to one of those requirements not fully discussed in respondent's determination, we note that information contained in the feasibility study submitted by petitioners in support of their application for a variance fell far short of demonstrating practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship ( see, Matter of Village Bd. v. Jarrold, 53 N.Y.2d 254).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.