Opinion
February 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that strict compliance with the zoning resolution will cause practical difficulties (see generally, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591). Inasmuch as the denial of the area variance under the circumstances of this case was not illegal, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion, the proceeding was properly dismissed (see, Matter of Faham v Bockman, 151 A.D.2d 665). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.