Opinion
Argued February 8, 2000.
April 13, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review the assessment of the petitioner's property, the petitioner appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered January 28, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, reduced the petitioner's real property tax assessment.
Flower Medalie, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Edward Flower and Randolph M. Medalie of counsel), for appellant.
Smith, Finkelstein, Lundberg, Isler and Yakaboski, Riverhead, N Y (Francis J. Yakaboski of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In valuing the individual mobile homes in the subject mobile home park, the trial court properly relied upon the appraisal of the respondent's expert. That appraisal used comparable sales of mobile homes in the area of the instant property, unlike the petitioner's appraisal, which relied upon a pricing guide describing retail sales in the entire New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania region (see generally, Matter of Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus, 80 N.Y.2d 351, 356 ; Matter of Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Kiernan, 42 N.Y.2d 236 ; Matter of Phelps Dodge Indus. v. Kondzielaski, 131 A.D.2d 675 ). Moreover, contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the trial court was not required to use the replacement cost values as the upper limit of value of the units (see, Matter of Mayos Clothes v. Board of Review of Town of Smithtown, 47 A.D.2d 531; cf., Matter of Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Kiernan, supra, at 242; G.R.F., Inc. v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 41 N.Y.2d 512, 514 ).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.