Opinion
Argued December 7, 1999
January 18, 2000
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of East Hampton, dated January 10, 1997, which, after a hearing, granted the application of the respondent Nathan L. Halpern to revoke a building permit issued to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to remove a patio, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), entered January 19, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Michael G. Walsh, Water Mill, New York, N.Y., and Shaw, Licitra, Esernio Schwartz, P. C., Garden City, N.Y. (Anton J. Borovina of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).
Pachman Pachman, P.C., Commack, N.Y. (Matthew E. Pachman of counsel), for all respondents except Nathan L. Halpern.
Ackerman Wainwright, East Hampton, N.Y. (Leonard I. Ackerman of counsel), for respondent Nathan L. Halpern.
DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The petitioner's argument that the application of the respondent Nathan L. Halpern before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of East Hampton was untimely was not made before that agency and, therefore, is not properly before this court (see,Matter of Hughes v. Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 N.Y.2d 833; Matter of Klapak v. Blum, 65 N.Y.2d 670 ). In any event, the argument is without merit (see, Matter of Pansa v. Damiano, 14 N.Y.2d 356 ; cf., Matter of Parkview Assocs. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274, cert denied 488 U.S. 901).
The petitioner's remaining argument is similarly not properly before the court and, in any event, is without merit.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.