Upon review of the findings of fact rendered after a nonjury trial, "[i]f the credible evidence in the record indicates that a different finding from that of the trial court is not unreasonable, this Court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony as well as conflicting inferences which may be drawn therefrom," and then "render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a clone case, the Trial Judge has the advantage of viewing the witnesses" ( Matter of Fasano v State of New York, 113 AD2d 885, 888; see We're Assoc. Co. v Rodin Sportswear, 288 AD2d 465; U.S. No. 1 Laffey Real Estate v Hanna, 215 AD2d 552). We find no reason to disturb the trial court's valuation of the subject property, which fell within the range of the competing appraisals ( see Rockland Dev. Assoc. v State of New York, 15 AD3d 381; Matter of 495 Cent. Ave. Corp. v Town of Greenburgh, 237 AD2d 606). The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.

Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff did not attempt to establish its entitlement to judgment without placing affirmative proof before the trier of fact ( cf., 10 Park Sq. Assocs. v. The Travelers, supra). Valuation of property by a trier of fact that is within the range of expert testimony generally will be upheld on appeal ( see, e.g., Matter of 495 Cent. Ave. Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 237 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Caldor, Inc. v. Board of Assessors, 227 A.D.2d 400; S.A.B. Enters. v. Village of Athens, 195 A.D.2d 642, 645), and a trier of fact is expected to consider all the evidence. Here, plaintiff's experts testified that the building had an actual cash value of approximately $360,000 and its contents had an actual cash value of approximately $49,000.

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs. Contrary to the appellants' contentions, the challenged findings of the Supreme Court are within the range of the experts' testimony and are supported by the record (see, Matter of 495 Cent. Ave. Corp. v. Town of Greenburgh, 237 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Krebs v. Board of Assessors, 225 A.D.2d 625; Matter of Alexander's Dept. Store of Val. Stream v. Board of Assessors, 227 A.D.2d 549). The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.