Case Name: In the Matter of Jeffrey Sherwin, Appellant, v. Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-05-18
Citations: 139 A.D.3d 962
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Jeffrey Sherwin, Appellant, v Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals et al., Respondents.
Judges: Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 962–962

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Jeffrey Sherwin, Appellant, v Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals et al., Respondents.
[30 NYS3d 577]

Opinion:
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 19, 2013, which, after a hearing, affirmed the issuance of a building permit by the Village of Goshen Building Inspector to the respondent C.H. Development Corp. for the construction of a single-family dwelling, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated June 30, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
"In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a zoning board of appeals, judicial review is limited to ascertaining whether the action was illegal, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion" (Matter of Arceri v Town of Islip Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 16 AD3d 411, 412 [2005]). Here, the determination of the Village of Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals that McNally Street had become a village street pursuant to Village Law § 6-626 and, therefore, that a building permit was properly issued to the respondent C.H. Development Corp. for the construction of a single-family dwelling has a rational basis and is not arbitrary and capricious (see CPLR 7803; Matter of Marchand v New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 19 NY3d 616 [2012]; Kingsley v Village of Cooperstown, 107 AD3d 1092 [2013]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Leventhal, J.P., Roman, Hinds-Radix and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.