Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the application to intervene. Intervention in proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 is permitted for "interested persons" (CPLR 7802 [d]) and is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Matter of Clinton v Summers, 144 A.D.2d 145; Matter of Elinor Homes Co. v St. Lawrence, 113 A.D.2d 25). The intervenors in this case are the persons who own the premises upon which the subject construction was performed, who obtained the challenged certificate of occupancy for the completed construction, and who will be directly affected by the outcome of this proceeding.
Additionally, we agree with the Supreme Court's dismissal of this proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (see generally, Watergate II Apts. v Buffalo Sewer Auth., 46 N.Y.2d 52, 57; Steinberg v Sea Gate Assn., 118 A.D.2d 558), inasmuch as the challenged determination was subject to review by the Village Board of Appeals (see, Village Law § 7-712 ; Matter of Rattner v Planning Commn., 156 A.D.2d 521; Engert v Phillips, 150 A.D.2d 752; Matter of Turner v Town of Grand Is. Bldg. Dept., 97 A.D.2d 980). Accordingly, the petitioner's failure to seek the appropriate administrative remedy bars the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see generally, Matter of Corcella v Seifert, 181 A.D.2d 677).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be factually and legally unpersuasive.