Picarelli v. KarlPicarelli v. Karl
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reaching its determination denying the petitioner‘s application, the respondents engaged in the balancing test prescribed by
Since the determination under review was not illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion, and was supported by a rational basis (see Matter of Ifrah v Utschig, 98 NY2d 304, 308 [2002]), it must be sustained. Skelos, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Dickerson, JJ., concur.