Case Name: In the Matter of Marie Rizzo et al., Appellants, v. Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1998-02-17
Citations: 247 A.D.2d 543
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Marie Rizzo et al., Appellants, v Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle, Respondent.
Judges: Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 543–543

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Marie Rizzo et al., Appellants, v Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle, Respondent.
[668 NYS2d 476]

Opinion:
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle, dated July 12, 1996, which, after a hearing, granted a use variance for the operation of a light manufacturing facility in a commercial zone, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered December 3, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Following a series of hearings, the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle (hereinafter the Board) granted a use variance for the operation of a light manufacturing facility in a commercial zone. Several neighboring property owners then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board's action.
Upon our review of the record, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the Board's grant of the variance was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious (see, Matter of Sasso v Osgood, 86 NY2d 374; Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 NY2d 441; Matter of Turner v Organ, 240 AD2d 507).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.