Majority
Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law, Emd at which evidence is taken, is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176 , 179 [1978]). Substantial evidence “means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” (300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d at 180 ; see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward, 70 NY2d 436 , 443
Here, the petitioners submitted an application for an area variance allowing them to subdivide their property, which was located in the Nissequogue River recreational river corridor and thus fell within the purview of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System (see ECL 15-2701 et seq.), into lots smaller than the required minimum of two acres (see 6 NYCRR 666.13 [C] [2] [b], note [iii]). Contrary to the petitioners’ contentions, the determination of the respondent Alexander B. Grannis, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, inter alia, that the development would result in adverse environmental impacts within the river corridor was supported by substantial evidence (see 6 NYCRR 666.9 [a] [2]).
The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Miller, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- 300 Gramatan Avenue Associates v. State Division of Human Rights 45 NY2d 176 at 179 p. 851
- Berenhaus v. Ward 70 NY2d 436 at 443 p. 851
- Venditti v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 57 AD3d 685 at 686 p. 852
- Bradley Corporate Park v. Crotty 39 AD3d 632 at 634 p. 852