Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Palella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In determining an award to an owner of condemned property, the trial court's findings must either be within the range of the expert testimony or be supported by other evidence and adequately explained by the court (Matter of City of New York [Reiss], 55 N.Y.2d 885, 886; Kaszubowski v. State of New York, 112 A.D.2d 742, 743; see also, Ingber v. State of New York, 187 A.D.2d 826, 829; Gerosa, Inc. v. State of New York, 180 A.D.2d 552, 553). Here, the trial court's determination of the value of the property was within the range established by the appellant's expert and the County's expert. Moreover, the trial court's explanation for its partial reliance on the testimony of the County's appraiser was adequate, the court's reliance was warranted, and its findings are based upon the evidence (see, Yonkers City Post No. 1666 v Josanth Realty Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed Rattan Furniture Co.], 160 A.D.2d 705).
The trial court properly accepted the capitalization rate established by the County's appraiser. The proper capitalization rate is a factual question for the trial court, and the opinion evidence of an appraiser is competent evidence of that rate (see, Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Superior Reed Rattan Furniture Co.], supra, at 706; Matter of Burke Apts. v. Swan, 137 A.D.2d 321, 325; Star Plaza v. State of New York, 79 A.D.2d 746, 747; Kurnick v. State of New York, 54 A.D.2d 1098; see also, Matter of City of Rochester v. Lubelle, 174 A.D.2d 1000). We decline to disturb the trial court's findings in view of the evidence on this issue.
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.