COCA COLA BOTTLING CO OF NEW YORK INC v. ASSESSOR BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF GEDDES (1997)

 Supreme Court erred in not considering petitioner's comparable sales because they were not within the Town of Geddes.  “The differences between the comparables and the differences between them and [the] subject property are the proper subject of adjustment by expert witnesses and the degree of comparability becomes a question of fact” (Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v. 123 Falls Realty, 66 A.D.2d 1009, 1010, 411 N.Y.S.2d 752, appeal dismissed 46 N.Y.2d 997, 416 N.Y.S.2d 242, 389 N.E.2d 837, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 711, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 394 N.E.2d 293).   Whether to receive “ ‘evidence of sales of property beyond the immediate vicinity of the subject property is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge’ ” (Matter of Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Kiernan, 42 N.Y.2d 236, 241, 397 N.Y.S.2d 718, 366 N.E.2d 808, quoting Levin v. State of New York, 13 N.Y.2d 87, 92, 242 N.Y.S.2d 193, 192 N.E.2d 155).

We therefore remit the matter to Supreme Court to evaluate petitioner's comparable sales and to make additional findings.   A determination based on all of the court's findings is required.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petitions reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

MEMORANDUM.