Opinion
October 15, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion ( Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591) and was based on substantial evidence. Petitioner failed to prove that it would suffer a significant economic injury if the application for the variance was denied (see Matter of National Merritt v Weist, 41 N.Y.2d 438; Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra; Matter of Brower v Board of Zoning Appeals, 58 A.D.2d 863; Matter of Point Lookout Civic Assn. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 112 Misc.2d 263). Petitioner presented no proof of either the existence or the dimension of its alleged economic loss stemming from the denial of the variance (see Matter of Campus v Delany, 62 A.D.2d 990; Matter of Craig v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 50 A.D.2d 887, aff'd 41 N.Y.2d 832). Nor has petitioner shown any practical difficulties which would entitle it to a variance (see Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis, 1 A.D.2d 236, aff'd 1 N.Y.2d 839; Matter of Wachsberger v Michalis, 19 Misc.2d 909 [Meyer, J.], aff'd 18 A.D.2d 921). Petitioner purchased the parcel in question with full knowledge that its proposed four-lot subdivision might not be in conformity with the village zoning ordinance (cf. Matter of Courtesy Estates v Schermerhorn, 51 A.D.2d 966).
Any difficulty petitioner has with complying with the zoning ordinance and applicable regulations is self-imposed and purely economic. What is more, respondents noted, upon argument of the appeal, that petitioner, by reducing the number of lots in the proposed subdivision from four to three, and utilizing the requirement of a 50-foot road and cul-de-sac, would be in full compliance with the zoning ordinance and the applicable regulations (see Matter of 113 Hillside Ave. Corp. v Zaino, 27 N.Y.2d 258). Thus, the denial of the area variance by the village Board of Zoning Appeals was not an abuse of discretion.
Petitioner's other contentions have been examined and lack merit. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.