Opinion
May 4, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the determinations are confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
The Supreme Court erred in finding that the appellants' determinations dated January 13, 1984 and November 16, 1984, respectively, were arbitrary because they interpreted the zoning ordinance provision in issue differently than they had interpreted the same provision in another determination, also dated January 13, 1984, with regard to another applicant. The appellants offered a reasonable explanation, supported by the record, for the apparent inconsistency (see, Matter of Field Delivery Serv. [Roberts], 66 N.Y.2d 516).
The court also erred in refusing to dismiss the proceeding based on a 1984 amendment to the village's zoning ordinance. That amendment, which was passed after the appellants' determinations but before the Supreme Court's decision, deleted the provision upon which the petitioners relied in their application. The record contains no "special facts" which would except this case from the general rule that a case must be decided on the law as it exists at the time of the decision (see, Matter of Amsterdam-Manhattan Assocs. v. Joy, 42 N.Y.2d 941; Matter of Pokoik v. Silsdorf, 40 N.Y.2d 769; Matter of Aversano v. Two Family Use Bd., 117 A.D.2d 665; Matter of Golisano v. Town Bd., 31 A.D.2d 85). Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, the appellants' determinations are confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.