Taken as true, as required under a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), plaintiffs' allegations that the Himmel defendants: 1) were aware of the defective condition; 2) were on notice that the condition posed a hazard to pedestrians below (i.e., the general public); 3) were aware that the condition warranted immediate corrective action; and 4) failed to undertake any corrective measures, amount to a willful and reckless disregard of a dangerous condition, and thus, sufficient to sustain a demand for punitive damages (see Solis-Vicuna v Notias, 71 AD3d 868, 871 [2d Dept 2010] [punitive damages appropriate where defendants were aware of dangers of lead paint and failed to abate the lead paint in the apartment despite notice by the Department of Health]; O'Brien v. Jack LaLanne Fitness Centers, Inc., 237 AD2d 587, 588 [2d Dept 1997] ["(a)s the complaint generally alleged that the defendants were previously and repeatedly cited for infractions by the Nassau County Health Department regarding the maintenance or operation of the whirlpool where the incident occurred, that branch of the motion which was to strike the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages was properly denied at this juncture"]; Gruher v Craig, 208 AD2d 900, 901 [2d Dept 1994] ["We agree with the trial court that the defendant's conduct was so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness, since he had notice of the hazardous condition for such a significant period of time, and the risk to the tenant was so great.
Judicial review of a zoning board determination is limited to deciding whether the action taken by the zoning board is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion ( Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Conley v. Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. Of Appeals, 40 NY2d 309; see Matter of Rosof v. Bailin, 237 AD2d 612; Matter of Sycamore Run, Inc. v. Foss, 237 AD2d 929). The determination of the zoning board will ordinarily be sustained if the determination has a rational basis and if it is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, supra at 444; Matter of Papanicolaou v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Village of Pleasantville, 237 AD2d 445; Matter of Bergen v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Putnam Valley, 237 AD2d 587, app. dismissed 90 NY2d 828, lv. denied 91 NY2d 806; Matter of McGlasson Realty Inc. v. Town of Patterson, 234 AD2d 462). Thus, where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists, a court may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the zoning board ( Matter of Toys "R" Us v. Silva, 89 NY2d 411).