Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The denial of the petitioner's application for a front-yard setback variance was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion (cf., Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 67 N.Y.2d 702). The petitioner failed to establish that strict compliance with the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). We note that even if the petitioner had proven practical difficulties, the respondents met their burden of going forward with evidence, which was not refuted, that the denial of the variance application was reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.