IN RE: Michael GRIGORAKI

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Michael GRIGORAKI, appellant, v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF the TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, respondent.

Decided: June 24, 2008

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., PETER B. SKELOS, JOSEPH COVELLO, and RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ. Miller, Rosado & Algios, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Neil A. Miller and Christopher Rosado of counsel), for appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead dated November 17, 2006, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's applications for certain area variances in connection with a proposed subdivision of real property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered April 20, 2007, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 “Courts may set aside a zoning board determination only where the record reveals that the board acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion, or that it merely succumbed to generalized community pressure” (Matter of Pecoraro v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 2 N.Y.3d 608, 613, 781 N.Y.S.2d 234, 814 N.E.2d 404;  see Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 774 N.E.2d 732;  Matter of Josato, Inc. v. Wright, 35 A.D.3d 470, 471, 826 N.Y.S.2d 381).   Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the respondent was entitled to consider evidence presented showing that all residences within the 200-foot radius immediately surrounding the subject property were in conformity with the area requirements for that district, that the subdivision will reduce open space and create overcrowding, and that the harm to the petitioner was self-created (see Matter of Inguant v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Brookhaven, 304 A.D.2d 831, 757 N.Y.S.2d 860;  Matter of Rod Staten Corp. v. Trotta, 278 A.D.2d 328, 718 N.Y.S.2d 201;  Matter of Weisman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Kensington, 260 A.D.2d 487, 688 N.Y.S.2d 215).   The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit (see 41 Kew Gardens Rd. Assoc. v. Tyburski, 70 N.Y.2d 325, 333, 520 N.Y.S.2d 544, 514 N.E.2d 1114;  Robert E. Kurzius, Inc. v. Incorporated Vil. of Upper Brookville, 51 N.Y.2d 338, 343, 434 N.Y.S.2d 180, 414 N.E.2d 680).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Copied to clipboard