IN RE: Terrence CULLEN (1999)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip, dated October 24, 1995, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application for certain area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), entered July 22, 1997, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip (hereinafter the ZBA) has complied with this court's prior order in a related case directing it to explain why certain prior variance applications were granted and the application made by the prior owner of the subject premises for the same variances the petitioner now seeks was denied (see, Matter of Frisenda v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Islip, 215 A.D.2d 479, 626 N.Y.S.2d 263;  Matter of Field Delivery Serv., 66 N.Y.2d 516, 498 N.Y.S.2d 111, 488 N.E.2d 1223;  see also, Teal v. Albany Capitaland Enterprises, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 859, 687 N.Y.S.2d 451;  Matter of Blount, 217 A.D.2d 879, 629 N.Y.S.2d 551;  cf., Matter of Broadway Bretton, Inc. v. NYS Div. of Housing & Com Renewal, 258 A.D.2d 311, 685 N.Y.S.2d 195).   The record further establishes that the explanations of the ZBA were both rational and supported by substantial evidence.   It is well settled that the determination of a zoning board “must be upheld if it is rational and supported by substantial evidence” (see, Khan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Irvington, 87 N.Y.2d 344, 351, 639 N.Y.S.2d 302, 662 N.E.2d 782;  Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 596, 394 N.Y.S.2d 579, 363 N.E.2d 305).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.