Opinion
May 18, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The property that is the subject of these assessment proceedings was sold in November 1985, after the trial in this case was concluded but before the court had rendered any decision. The sale price was alleged to be $3,890,000, or about $3,000,000 more than the petitioner's witnesses had claimed at the trial that the property was worth. This price could well have a bearing on determining the value of the property as of the taxable status dates which occurred in 1982, 1983 and 1984 (People ex rel. Four Park Ave. Corp. v. Lilly, 265 App. Div. 68, 70, 72; People ex rel. Jamaica Water Supply Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs., 196 N.Y. 39, 50-51; Matter of Woolworth Co. v. Tax Commn., 20 N.Y.2d 561) and the court properly exercised its discretion to admit such evidence (People ex rel. Four Park Ave. Corp. v. Lilly, supra, at 72; see, Sears, Roebuck Co. v Assessor of City of White Plains, 66 A.D.2d 777). Nor does RPTL 720 (3) (as amended by L 1985, ch 878; L 1986, ch 679), which concerns evidence that the property is assessed at a higher percentage of full market value than other property on the assessment roll, limit evidence here where the parties also disputed the property's correct full market value (see, RPTL 706). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.