We agree with respondent, however, that the court erred in granting the petition without first affording respondent the opportunity to serve and file an answer ( see CPLR 7804 [f]; Matter of Bethelite Community Church, Great Tomorrows Elementary School v Department of Envtl. Protection of City of N.Y., 8 NY3d 1001; Matter of Julicher v Town of Tonawanda, 34 AD3d 1217). We cannot conclude that "the facts are so fully presented in the papers of the respective parties that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exists and no prejudice will result from the failure to require an answer" ( Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102; cf. Matter of Kuzma v City of Buffalo, 45 AD3d 1308, 1311; Matter of Tozzo v Board of Appeals on Zoning of City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 810, 811). We therefore modify the judgment by vacating those parts granting the petition, and we grant respondent 20 days from service of the order of this Court with notice of entry to serve and file an answer.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination on the cross appeals. Because the dispositive facts were undisputed, and the arguments of the parties were fully set forth in the record before the court, the Supreme Court properly reached the merits of the combined petition and complaint without having provided the movants the opportunity of serving an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) and 3211 ( see Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102; Matter of lntermor v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Malverne, 286 AD2d 330, 331; Matter of Dougherty v Mammina, 261 AD2d 400, 401; Matter of Tozzo v Board of Appeals on Zoning of City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 810). However, the court erred in granting the combined petition and complaint to the extent of annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach (hereinafter the Zoning Board).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as academic without costs or disbursements, in light of our determination on the cross appeals. Because the dispositive facts were undisputed, and the arguments of the parties were fully set forth in the record before the court, the Supreme Court properly reached the merits of the petition and complaint without having provided the movants the opportunity of serving an answer pursuant to CPLR 7804 (f) and 3211 ( see Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100, 102; Matter of Intermor v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Malverne, 286 AD2d 330, 331; Matter of Dougherty v. Mammina, 261 AD2d 400, 401; Matter of Tozzo v. Board of Appeals on Zoning of City of New Rochelle, 179 AD2d 810). However, the court erred in granting the petition to the extent of annulling the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach (hereinafter the Zoning Board).

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the petitioners were entitled to the issuance of an off-premises beer license (see, e.g., Matter of RSSM, Inc. v. New York State Liq. Auth., 204 A.D.2d 906; Matter of Fuffy's Pancake House v. McLaughlin, 88 A.D.2d 975; Matter of Tobo Rest. v. State Liq. Auth., 49 A.D.2d 766). We have reviewed the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (CPLR 7804 [f]; cf., Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 63 N.Y.2d 100, 102; Briedis v. Village of Tuxedo Park, 156 A.D.2d 744, 746; see also, Matter of Tozzo v. Board of Appeals on Zoning, 179 A.D.2d 810, 811). Lawrence, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

No facts were submitted on this petition which would justify addressing that issue at this point. Although respondents' motion was made prior to service of an answer and is cast solely as a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 7805 (f), the comprehensive papers submitted by the respective parties fully inform this court of all issues such that it is clear that no dispute as to the facts exist and no prejudice will result from treating respondents' motion as one for summary judgment without extending respondents the opportunity of serving an answer ( Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 63 N.Y.2d 100, 101-102; Matter of Tozzo v Board of Appeals on Zoning, 179 A.D.2d 810, 811 [2d Dept]; Briedis v Village of Tuxedo Park, 156 A.D.2d 744, 746 [2d Dept]). Accordingly, respondents' motion is converted to a summary judgment motion and, based on the foregoing analysis, that motion is granted, and the petition is dismissed.