Opinion
2000-05934
Argued November 1, 2001.
November 26, 2001.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York, dated December 21, 1999, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for an area variance, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), dated April 18, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Rothkrug Rothkrug, Great Neck, N.Y. (Simon H. Rothkrug of counsel), for appellants.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F. X. Hart and Jane L. Gordon of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., DANIEL F. LUCIANO, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the respondent Board of Standards and Appeals of the City of New York (hereinafter the respondent) did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in denying its application for an area variance (see, Matter of Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 N.Y.2d 344; Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441). The appellants obtained building permits based upon their submission of inaccurate surveys incorrectly depicting the side-yard setbacks of an adjacent home. Had the appellants submitted accurate surveys, they would have been required to observe an eight-foot side-yard setback pursuant to the pertinent zoning ordinance requirements. The appellants did not demonstrate that the respondent acted arbitrarily in refusing to permit them to erect their building only inches from the adjacent home (see, Matter of Monte v. Edwards, 258 A.D.2d 584; Matter of Bari Homes v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Yorktown, 226 A.D.2d 368; Matter of Seumenicht v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Rye, 217 A.D.2d 632; Matter of Carlucci v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Philipstown, 205 A.D.2d 688; Matter of J.T.T. Contrs. v. Ward, 148 A.D.2d 537; Matter of Midgett v. Schermerhorn, 24 A.D.2d 572).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and SMITH, JJ., concur.