IN RE: Domenica M. CARLINO (2006)

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Islip dated July 20, 2004, which denied the petitioner's application for certain area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), entered January 27, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

 Zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for area variances, and a zoning board's determination should not be set aside unless there is a showing of, inter alia, arbitrariness (see Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404;  Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732;  Matter of Fuhst v. Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441, 444, 410 N.Y.S.2d 56, 382 N.E.2d 756;  Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 A.D.3d 768, 770-771, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98;  Matter of Bistricer v. Chin, 272 A.D.2d 397, 398, 707 N.Y.S.2d 368;  Matter of Dudyshyn Contr. Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Mount Pleasant, 255 A.D.2d 445, 680 N.Y.S.2d 571).   Here, the zoning board's decision was based on objective factual evidence in the record and thus, was rational and not arbitrary or capricious (see Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, supra at 773, 809 N.Y.S.2d 98).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declined to disturb it.