Opinion
October 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered, that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the determination of the Board of Appeals on Zoning of the City of New Rochelle (hereinafter Zoning Board) was not unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion (see, Matter of Frishman v Schmidt, 61 N.Y.2d 823, 825; Matter of Cowan v. Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591, 597; Matter of Criscione v. Wallace, 145 A.D.2d 697, 698). The Zoning Board could properly construe Zoning Code of the City of New Rochelle § 331-16 (A) (3), to limit the commonly understood meaning of the term "professional person" to a person engaged in activity similar to the professions specifically listed in the section, and the petitioner failed to present any evidence of specialized or long-term training or a license which would qualify her as a "professional person" such as those listed in the statute or within the common meaning of the term (see, Zoning Code of City of New Rochelle § 331-16 [A] [3]; see also, Matter of Geiffert v. Mealey, 293 N.Y. 583; People v. Cully Realty, 109 Misc.2d 169, 170; People v. Marcus, 142 Misc.2d 908, 909-910; Matter of Schweizer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 8 Misc.2d 878, 879-880; City of New Rochelle v. Friedman, 190 Misc. 654, 656-658).
The Zoning Board could also properly determine that the petitioner's management consulting service did not fall in the class of "[c]ustomary home occupations, such as dressmaking or millinery" within the meaning of Zoning Code of the City of New Rochelle § 331-16 (A) (4) (see, e.g., People v. Nicosia, 42 Misc.2d 300; compare, Matter of Wise v. Michaelis, 203 N.Y.S.2d 247, affd 12 A.D.2d 788). We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.