Opinion
May 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rossetti, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that evidence of comparable sales is the preferred measure of a property's value for the purposes of assessment valuation ( see, Matter of Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus, 80 N.Y.2d 351, 356; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v Assessor for Town of Brookhaven, 202 A.D.2d 32, 36). Absent legal error, the suitability of comparable sales is a matter for resolution by the trial court ( see, Matter of Phelps Dodge Indus. v. Kondzielaski, 131 A.D.2d 675, 678). Moreover, if the assessed valuation, as well as its various components, is within the range of the expert testimony presented by the parties, it should only be upset if the court committed legal error ( see, Matter of Krebs v. Board of Assessors, 225 A.D.2d 625; Argersinger v. State of New York, 32 A.D.2d 708).
Here, because the evidence supports the reliability of the comparable sales proffered by both parties, the Supreme Court properly relied on this data in valuing the subject property. Moreover, the court's determination fell within the assessed values urged by the respective parties and the court fully explained its determination, addressing the adjustments to the comparable sales applied by the parties' appraisers and its reasoning for deducting asbestos removal and demolition costs.
The appellants' contention that the court erred as a matter of law in rejecting its alternate valuation method is without merit ( see, Matter of Krebs v. Board of Assessors, supra). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.