OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Respondent’s determination that appellant’s application for a special use permit did not meet town zoning ordinance standards, in that the proposed shopping center would create undue traffic congestion and hazard to the nearby school, is sufficiently supported by the record (see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 NY2d 801, 802). While expert opinion regarding traffic patterns may not be disregarded in favor of generalized community objections (see, Green v Lo Grande, 96 AD2d 524, appeal dismissed 61 NY2d 758), here there was other basis in the record for respondent’s determination, including evidence from the expert that the shopping center would generate significant increased traffic, to which evidence respondent’s discretion and commonsense judgments might be applied in accordance with the town ordinance (see, Cummings v Town Bd., 62 NY2d 833, 835; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 24.15, at 294 [3d ed]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.