Casserino v. City of Rochester

*968exhaust their administrative remedies with respect to their contention that they were entitled to a use variance, and this Court has no discretionary power to reach it (see, Matter of Nelson v Coughlin, 188 AD2d 1071, appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 834). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pigott, Jr., Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Fisher, J.). We add only that, because petitioners did not seek a use variance in their administrative appeal to respondent City of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, they failed to