Paris v. Eisenberg, 35 Misc.2d 934, 936, 231 N.Y.S.2d 189 (Sup Ct, Nassau County 1962), cited by the petitioners as persuasive authority, is inapplicable to this case. In Paris, the Court found that the actions of the offending municipality:
It has generally been accepted that the power to grant or deny requests for variances, and other relief, may be exercised only after a hearing and that the hearing requirement is mandatory. (See Matter of Buffalo Cremation Co. v March, 249 N.Y. 531; Galvin v Murphy, 11 A.D.2d 900; Matter of Paris v Eisenberg, 35 Misc.2d 934.) This court, accordingly, annuls and sets aside the order of the respondent agency with the direction that the matter be set down for a rehearing in accordance with this determination.
Its recognition criterion applies not to the educational institution itself but to the uses to which its property is put. Had the board intended to restrict the grant of special use permits to those institutions approved by the Board of Regents it could easily have done so (see the ordinances described in Matter of Paris v. Eisenberg, 35 Misc.2d 934 and in Matter of Merrick Community Nursery School v. Young, 11 Misc.2d 576). The Board of Regents is the head of the Education Department and is empowered to appoint a Commissioner of Education who serves as the administrative officer (Education Law, ยง 101).