Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion to dismiss the proceeding is denied, and the petition is reinstated.
Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, we find that the petitioner does have standing to maintain this proceeding. In opposition to the motion to dismiss, the petitioner alleged that he is employed as a teacher by the local school district, that he had resided on the property adjacent to the site of the proposed development for eight years, and that he has an agreement with the owner to remain on the premises for an indefinite period of time. In Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning Appeals ( 69 N.Y.2d 406, 414-415), the Court of Appeals recognized that persons with leasehold interests in property may have standing to challenge a zoning determination affecting adjacent properties since "[a] change in contiguous or closely proximate property obviously can as readily affect the value and enjoyment of a leasehold as the underlying ownership interest" (see also, Lavere v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 39 A.D.2d 639, affd 33 N.Y.2d 873; Community Planning Bd. No. 2 v. Board of Stds. Appeals, 43 A.D.2d 670; Daub v. Popkin, 5 A.D.2d 283, affd 4 N.Y.2d 1024).
The unrefuted allegations in the petitioner's affidavit regarding his possessory interest in adjacent property, coupled with his assertions that the proposed construction of 200 residential units may adversely affect him in such matters, inter alia, as noise, water, air pollution and traffic density (see, Matter of Tuxedo Conservation Taxpayers Assn. v. Town Bd., 69 A.D.2d 320), are sufficient to accord him standing to proceed with this lawsuit. Mollen, P.J., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.