Opinion
June 3, 1996
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the methodology for computing its equalization rate was not rational and that the equalization rate was not supported by substantial evidence ( see, Matter of Town of Greenburgh v. New York State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 226 A.D.2d 546; Matter of Town of Harrison v. New York State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 226 A.D.2d 548; Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v. New York State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 209 A.D.2d 765, 766; Matter of City of White Plains v. New York State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 205 A.D.2d 771, 772; Matter of Town of Patterson v. State Bd. of Equalization Assessment, 168 A.D.2d 820, 821). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.