Opinion
January 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner failed to prove that she would suffer significant economic injury or practical difficulty if the application for the variance was denied (see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 910; Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 110 A.D.2d 135, affd 67 N.Y.2d 702). In determining whether financial hardships would be inflicted "the inquiry should properly focus upon the value of the parcel as presently zoned, rather than upon the value that the parcel would have if the variance were granted" (Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra, at 597). The petitioner did not adduce proof of the property's economic value when the petitioner acquired it or its present economic value. Thus, there is no predicate which would support a finding of economic hardship (Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra, at 597; Matter of Craig v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 41 N.Y.2d 832). In any event, the respondent's finding that there was no showing of practical difficulty and its consequent denial of the application have a rational basis and are based upon substantial evidence in the record; the denial was not arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion (see, Human Dev. Servs. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.