DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner, a check cashing business, lacked standing to challenge the issuance of a license to the respondent Coqui Check Cashing Corp. (hereinafter Coqui), its competitor. Competitive injury, in and of itself, does not confer standing upon a petitioner unless such injury falls within the zone of interest of the controlling statute ( see Matter of Dairylea Coop. v. Walkley, 38 N.Y.2d 6, 9-12; Troy Ambulance Serv. v. New York State Dept. of Health, 260 A.D.2d 715, 716; Matter of Subway Check Cashing Serv. v. Considine, 158 A.D.2d 406; New York Hearing Aid Soc. v. Children's Hosp. Rehabilitation Center of Utica, 91 A.D.2d 333, 334; Matter of Our Lady of Good Counsel, R.C. Church School v. Ball, 45 A.D.2d 66, 70, affd, 38 N.Y.2d 780; Nostrand Check Cashing Co. v. Clark, 27 Misc.2d 799, 800, affd 13 A.D.2d 922). Under Banking Law § 369, no license shall be issued to an applicant for a location which is "closer than one thousand five hundred eighty-four feet (three-tenths of a mile) from an existing licensee." Since the petitioner is located more than three-tenths of a mile from the proposed location of Coqui, its alleged injury did not fall within the zone of interest of the statute. Furthermore, there is a rational basis for the determination of the New York State Banking Department that the issuance of a license to Coqui to permit the cashing of checks, would "promote the convenience and advantage of the area" ( see Banking Law § 369).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.