Opinion
June 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.).
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the appellant's notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The New York State Board of Equalization and Assessment (hereinafter SBEA) is the State agency charged with the duty to establish equalization rates for the various municipalities in the State (see, RPTL 202; Matter of Town of Smithtown v Moore, 11 N.Y.2d 238, 242). RPTL 1202 (1) (a) requires the SBEA to establish these rates for the assessment roll prepared each year by cities, towns and villages. These rates are regarded as objectively and expertly determined (see, Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 N.Y.2d 440, 449-450). Although the determination establishing equalization rates is not made by means of an adjudicatory proceeding within the meaning of the State Administrative Procedure Act article 3, nevertheless it is a quasi-judicial determination (see, Matter of County of Nassau v State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 80 A.D.2d 9, 11) which must be sustained if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record (see, Matter of Town of Smithtown v. Moore, supra, at 247; Matter of Town of Patterson v. State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 168 A.D.2d 820, 821).
If a municipality objects to the proposed equalization rate it may serve a "complaint" on the SBEA setting forth its specific objections (see, 9 NYCRR 186-15.2 [a], [b]). The municipality must provide "specific documentation" to support each of its objections ( 9 NYCRR 186-15.2 [c] [6]). Where a municipality fails to comply with the documentation requirements of 9 NYCRR 186-15.2, the SBEA may reasonably reject the complaint or specific objections contained therein (Matter of Town of Patterson v. State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, supra, at 822).
Our review of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the determination of the SBEA is supported by substantial evidence. As to the City's objections which were not reviewed for inadequate documentation, the SBEA acted reasonably in rejecting them because the City failed to comply with the documentation regulations contained in 9 NYCRR 186-15.2, which were provided to it by the SBEA in a publication entitled "State Equalization Rates for 1989 Assessment Rolls Determination and Complaint Procedures".
Our conclusion that the SBEA's determination rejecting the City's objections was reasonable obviates the City's remaining argument that the final equalization rate, based upon a small sample size, resulted in a denial of its right to equal protection (see, Matter of Town of Patterson v. State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, supra, at 822). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.