Opinion
January 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Upon review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the appellants failed to establish either that the original owner and developer of the subdivision in question acquired any "vested rights" in the subdivision after it was ultimately approved in 1977, pursuant to Town Law § 265-a, or that, as successors in title to the lots in question, any "vested rights" inured to the appellants' benefit. Accordingly, they were required to obtain variances for the two lots (see, Matter of Ellington Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 77 N.Y.2d 114, 119; Matter of Showers v. Town of Poestenkill Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 176 A.D.2d 1157, 1158; see also, Matter of Ramapo 287 Ltd. Partnership v. Village of Montebello, 165 A.D.2d 544, 547). Moreover, we cannot say that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals lacked a rational basis supported by substantial evidence in the record for its conclusion that the appellants failed to demonstrate that their compliance with the amended zoning provisions would result in "practical difficulty" to them (see, Matter of Doyle v. Amster, 79 N.Y.2d 592, 595-596; Matter of Munnelly v. Town of E. Hampton, 173 A.D.2d 472, 473).
We have examined the appellants' remaining contention and find that it is without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.