Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Balbach, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"In determining an award to an owner of condemned property, the findings must be either 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; see also, Matter of Town of Islip v Sikora, 220 A.D.2d 434; Matter of County of Dutchess v Dutchess County Indus. Dev. Agency, 213 A.D.2d 635; Jonas v Power Auth., 210 A.D.2d 453; Gold-Mark 35 Assocs. v State of New York, 210 A.D.2d 377; 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 that the land's value was $561,000 was within the range set by the claimant's expert on the one hand, i.e. $561,800, and by the Town's expert on the other, i.e. $436,500. Moreover, the trial court's explanation of its determination was supported, inter alia, by evidence to the effect that many of the comparable properties cited by the Town were, in varying degrees, dissimilar to the subject property. Accordingly, the trial court's assessment must be given deference (see, Yonkers City Post No. 1666, v Josanth Realty Corp., 67 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031; Matter of Town of Islip v Sikora, supra; Matter of County of Dutchess v Dutchess County Indus. Dev. Agency, supra; 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 claimant's appraiser. The proper capitalization rate is a factual question for the trial court, and the opinion evidence of the appraisers is competent evidence of that rate (see, Matter of County of Dutchess v Dutchess County Indus. Dev. Agency, supra; 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 adduced on this issue.
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.