IN THE MATTER OF ABRISHAMI v. BD. OF TRUSTEES

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners argue that since Local Law No. 1 (2003) of the Incorporated Village of East Hills was not referred to the Nassau County Planning Commission as required by General Municipal Law § 239-m, it was invalid.

However, the respondents submitted evidence that it complied with this condition precedent ( see General Municipal Law § 239-m [d]). Therefore, its determination should not be annulled on that basis ( see Matter of Spiliotes v. Trotta, 288 AD2d 315). Moreover, the notice of the public hearing was not defective ( see Village Law § 7-706; Matter of Cellular Tel. Co. v. Meyer, 200 AD2d 743; Fairris v. Town of Washington Planning Bd., 167 AD2d 368, 370).