Respondents herein move to reargue so much of the court's decision of May 3, 2007 as (a) reduced assessed values for the theater condominium unit of the subject real property to zero for tax years 1995-96 and 1996-97, and (b) found the rentable area of the office condominium to be 762,035 square feet.

That branch of the motion to increase the rentable area to 868,868 square feet is denied. Respondents have not demonstrated that the court has "overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law." (Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept. 1979])

That branch of the motion to increase the values of the theater condominium component for the aforesaid two tax years is granted to the extent of the parties' stipulation, spread upon the record before this court on October 12, 2007 (tr. pp. 3, 6), agreeing that theater income for said years should be $300,000 per year. Accordingly, the court recalls its decision of May 3, 2007, and substitutes the following in its place and stead to reflect the changes in valuation resulting from the aforesaid stipulation.

This is a consolidated tax certiorari proceeding, pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, to review the assessed values of the building known as 1540 Broadway in Manhattan (the "Building") for the nine tax years from 1995/96 to 2003/04. The valuation date for each year was January 5.

Received in evidence were the appraisal reports of petitioner's expert, Jerome Haims (the "Haims appraisal"), and respondents' expert, Peter Brooks (The "Brooks appraisal"). The parties stipulated that for each year the ratio of assessed value to market value was 45% (Tr. p. 28, 8/1/06).

The Building is situated on an irregularly shaped lot of approximately 38,686 square feet and contains 44 stories. It was constructed in 1987 and is divided into five condominium units, each a separate tax lot. Lot 1001 consists of the garage located in the third sub-basement. Lot 1002 is a theater located below grade. Lots 1003 and 1004, which the parties stipulated may be treated by the court as a single lot, are occupied for retail use and are found partially in the basement, the first sub-basement, and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. Lot 1005, the office space component, was primarily occupied by the petitioner building owner. The area measurements of the individual units are opined by the respective appraisers as follows (Haims' appraisal, p. 2; Brooks' appraisal, p. 44):

< /tr>

CONDO UNIT	GR. SQ. FT. HAIMS	GR. SQ. FT. BROOKS	RENTABLE SQ. FT. HAIMS	RENTABLE SQ. FT. BROOKS
Lot 1001	38,953	38,953	36,857	36,857
Lot 1002	40,421	40,421	39,102	39,102
Lots 1003 & l004	137,180	137,180	130,695	116,914
Lot 1005	728,822	728,824	713,211	868,868
Totals	945,378	945,378	919,865	1,061,741

Based upon the aforesaid stipulated 45% of market value equalization rate, the appraisers respectively opined the following assessed valuations for the Building (Haims' appraisal, p. 6; Brooks' appraisal, p. 3):

Applying the said 45% equalization rate, the following are the appraised market values of the Building:

TAX YEAR	ACTUAL ASSMT.	HAIMS' ASSMT.	BROOKS' ASSMT.
1995/96	75,315,600	25,732,000	77,580,000
1996/97	75,330,000	35,618,000	79,245,000
1997/98	78,738,750	38,945,000	83,970,000
1998/99	81,956,250	50,163,000	99,630,000
1999/00	83,353,500	65,950,000	113,130,000
2000/01	86,476,500	78,631,000	133,650,000
2001/02	92,191,500	57,850,000	153,990,000
2002/03	92,362,500	59,772,000	145,845,000
2003/04	95,899,500	55,017,000	136,395,000

< /table> [*2]

Both experts adopted the income capitalization approach to valuation, which they agreed was most appropriate for appraising an office building which here was [*3]seventy percent owner occupied (see, Matter of Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Williams, 91 NY2d 639, 644 [1998]; Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, 45 NY2d 538, 543 [1978]).

Brooks sought first to determine the potential market rent in each tax year for the owner occupied space based on a survey of the market for comparable office leases current for each tax year at issue. He opined that the use of market rents, based on comparable leases, was the proper starting point for the tenant occupied retail space, but adopted the lease rents for the tenant occupied garage and theater spaces. From these various sources he derived an annual income from the Building, from which operating expenses were deducted. Brooks opined that actual operating expenses reported by petitioner were sufficiently consistent with the market to warrant adoption for appraisal purposes. He found that further deductions were required for vacancy and collection loss, as well as the landlord's stabilized costs of obtaining and retaining tenants. These deductions included estimated brokerage commissions, landlord contribution to tenant improvements and replacement reserves. The resulting figure, the net operating income (NOI), was then capitalized to derive a market value for the property .

Haims' application of the income capitalization approach was similar. He also estimated a market office rent for each appraisal date by "assembling a group of leases from similar midtown, Class A office buildings..." (Haims' appraisal, p. 85). Haims, however, employed the actual rents for all of the Building components other than the office component, but estimated stabilized expenses for the Building. This was opposed to Brooks' adoption of the landlord's actual reported expenses. Haims made adjustments to his comparable lease data for the time elapsed between the date of the commencement of the lease and the tax status date; i.e., January 5 of each tax year at issue. Further adjustments were made for differences in location, site, and age and condition.

While a valuation by a tax assessor is presumptively valid, such presumption disappears when an owner comes forward with "substantial evidence" to the contrary. A detailed appraisal report, such as presented herein by petitioner, is sufficient to meet its initial burden and thus overcome the presumption as to the validity of the assessment. The ultimate issue then for the court is whether the owner has, by a preponderance of the evidence, established that its property has been overvalued, and market value is the most reliable measure of a property's full value for assessment purposes [see, FMC Corporation v. Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 188-190 (1998); Gibson v. Gleason, 20 AD3d 623 (3d Dept, 2005)].

OFFICE COMPONENT-LOT 1005 [*4]

In deriving a market rent per square foot for the office component, Haimes presented a vast number of comparable leases, 45 just for the first tax year status date of January 5, 1995 (Haims' appraisal, p. 95). Applying all of the conditions for which adjustments were applied, the rents range from a five percent upward adjustment to in excess of a forty-five percent downward adjustment (Id). Similar results are presented for all of the tax years at issue, with a large number of comparables adjusted downward by double-digit percentages (Id). The resultant market rents found by Haims are as follows (Id, p. 93):

TAX YEAR	CITY'S MKT. VALUE	HAIMS'MKT. VALUE	BROOKS' MKT. VALUE
1995/96	167,368, 000	57,183,000	172,400,000
1996/97	167, 400,000	79,150,000	176,100.000
1997/98	174,975,000	86,544,000	186,600,000
1998/99	182,125,000	111,473,000	221,400,000
1999/00	185,230,000	146,556,000	251,400,000
2000/01	192,170,000	174,736,000	297,000,000
2001/02	204,870,000	128,855,000	342,000,000
2002/03	205,250,000	132,826,000	324,100,000
2003/04	213,110,000	122,261,000	303,100,000

TAX YEAR	MKT. RENT PER SQ. FT.
1995-96	$25.50
1996-97	29.50
1997-98	30.70
1998-99	33.30
1999-2000	40.25
2000-01	49.50
2001-02	39.50
2002-03	42.50
2003-04	40.50

By contrast, Brooks presented, at most, six comparable leases for each tax year. For 1995-96 he had no adjustment for the lease at 1325 Avenue of the Americas, and downward adjustments of 5%, 15%, 25%, 30% and 33 % for the other five comparables (Brooks' appraisal, p. 63). For 1996-97, Brooks presented comparable leases with adjustments of upward 35%, and downward 5%, 13%, 25%, 31% and 31% (Id, p. 65). Brooks' greatest adjustment for any of the six comparables in the 1997-98 tax year was a downward 30% (Id, p. 67). For 1998-99, Brooks presented three comparables adjusted downward, 17%, 20%, and 24%, respectively (Id, p. 69). He offered five comparable lease transactions for the tax year 1999-

2000, with these adjustments upwards 6%, downward 4%, 6%, 24% and 27% (Id, p. 71). For tax year 2000-2001, only two comparable leases were offered, adjusted downward 5% and 22% (Id, p. 73). Finally, Brooks' six comparables offered for tax year 2001-2002, his two offered for 2002-2003, and the four offered for 2003-2004, had no downward adjustment of more than 18% and no upward adjustment greater than 10% (Id, pp. 75,77,79).

"The best comparable(s), from both an appraisal standpoint and legal standpoint, are those that are most similar. To the appraiser this means the [*5]properties requiring the fewest adjustments to equalize them to the property under appraisal" (J.D. Eaton, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, 2nd ed., Chicago, Appraisal Institute, 1995). Additionally, "(i)n the absence of actual rents, the rental income of comparable property may be used as evidence of the value of the subject property. However such evidence should be rejected if the purported comparables are not sufficiently similar in structure, location and as many other features as possible [Manno v. Finance Administrator, 92 AD2d 896 (2d Dept 1983)]." (Henry O. Lee and Wilford A. LeForestier, Review and Reduction of Real Property Assessments in New York, 3rd ed. Albany, New York State Bar Association, 1988). "In reviewing an appraiser's adjustment factors, one should be alert for any large adjustment, since the greater the adjustment, the less reliable the (comparable)" (Jon Santemma, editor, Condemnation Law and Procedures in New York, Albany, New York State Bar Association, 2005). It has been indicated that when real estate comparables "required extensive adjustment" their "evidentiary value" was diminished [In re Bialystock & Bloom v. Gleason, 290 AD2d 607, 610 (3d Dept 2002)].

Petitioner argues that the "paucity" of lease transaction reported by the City's appraiser is "startling"(petitioner's post-trial memorandum, p. 21), inasmuch as Brooks relied on only forty leases over nine years. Haims, by contrast, presented between forty and forty-five leases for each year. The court finds that the petitioner's abundance of comparables is far more "suspect" than the "paucity" of those submitted by respondents given that the weight of good appraisal practice places reliance on the most similar properties requiring the least adjustment, and Haims' selection appears to require the contrary. Why present such a vast number if so many adjustments in the thirty-plus and forty-plus percent downward modification range are required, when a smaller number of comparables, more selectively chosen, would appear to be consistent with the best professional practice?

In comparing the market rent adjustment grids offered (Haims' appraisal, pp. 95-103; Brooks' appraisal, pp. 63-80), it appears that the comparables selected by Haims required adjustments of more than 30% from the contract rent in 58% of the examples for tax year 1995-96. Brooks, by contrast, presented comparables that required adjustment in excess of 30% from the contract rent in only 33% of the examples. For tax year 1997-98, Haims' comparables required adjustment in excess of 30% from the contract rent 29% of the time, as opposed to Brooks' comparables, which required 30% or more adjustment in only 20% of his offering. For tax year 1998-99, the comparative figures are 22% for Haims, 0% for Brooks. [*6]For tax year 1999-2000, Haims requires 30% plus adjustments 5% of the time, while for Brooks, it was 0%. For 2001-02, the 30% plus adjustments are 16% of Haims' examples, and none in those provided by Brooks. For 2002-03 and 2003-04, the figures are 12.5% for Haims, 0% for Brooks and 21.6% for Haims, 0% for Brooks, respectively. Only for tax year 1996-97 are Brooks' adjustment percentages higher than those of Haims. In that year, 50% of Brooks' comparables required adjustment of more than 30%, while Haims' remained at 39%. For tax year 2000-01, neither appraiser has any adjustment in excess of 30%.

The court finds that the methodology employed by Brooks is more reliable and adopts respondents' findings for comparable rents for the office component, as set forth in Brooks' adjustment grids for each tax year respectively (Brooks' appraisal, pp. 63, 65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79). They are as follows:

TAX YEAR	MKT. RENT PER SQ. FT.
1995-96	$36.00
1996-97	34.00
1997-98	34.00
1998-99	39.00
1999-2000	40.00
2000-01	49.00
2001-02	54.00
2002-03	55.00
2003-04	47.00

The court declines to adopt Brooks' additional upward adjustment for each of the above values based on a weighted averaging of an additional $3.50 premium per square foot for the proportionate share of the office component's square footage located on the upper floors of the Building (Brooks appraisal, pp. 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80). The high floor factor appears adequately provided for in the adjustment grid applied to all the comparables considered by respondents' appraisal.

Having adopted an appropriate rental value per square foot for the office component, that value for each year must be multiplied by the total square foot area of the office component to derive a stabilized gross income therefor. Haims opines that the correct multiplier is the rentable area of 713,211 square feet, as set forth in the original condominium offering plan (Haims' appraisal, p. 63). Brooks opines that the net rentable area of the office component is 868,868 square feet, based on various documents setting forth that figure, all claiming some modicum of reliability e. g.: a letter sent to the landlord's representative by the New York City Economic Development Corporation; a stacking plan used to market space in [*7]the subject building obtained from CoStar Group, a source of New York real estate data; and a lease entered into between the landlord and D. E. Shaw &Co. dated September 22, 1997 setting forth a rentable area for the 27th floor which, when projected to the total area of the office component, amounts to the figure asserted by respondents (Brooks' appraisal, p. 44-45).

Both appraisers testified that it is the practice in the New York commercial real estate market for landlords and tenants to negotiate a rentable area that is larger than the actual space that the tenant will occupy as an alternative to raising the actual rent per square foot for the actual space (Tr. pp. 109-114, 8/1/05; pp. 108-111, 8/3/05). Haims testified that, based on his experience, such an "add-on" factor would be no more than 20% (Tr. p. 97, 8/1/05). On the other hand, Brooks maintained that the differential is computed as a 25% loss factor , which translates to a 33% add-on (Tr. pp. 107-110, 8/3/05). With these customary add-ons, it appears that this can result in the somewhat remarkable assertion that a building contains more rentable square footage than its total gross square footage. In fact, here respondents' expert opined, in calculating the rentable square footage of the office component, that such area does exceed the gross area of that component.

Petitioner's architect, Alfonso S. D'Elia, submitted a report, in which he set forth the usable square footage areas of the subject building. He made calculations for usable area for both single tenant and multi-tenanted floors at 634,262.93 square feet and 570,535.50 square feet respectively. If these figures are averaged to reflect a mix of single and multi-tenant floors, the usable square footage calculates to 602,399.21 square feet of usable space.

In considering the evidence on this issue, the court will adopt an add-on factor of 26.5%, and apply it to the square foot calculations of Mr. D'Elia, whose testimony was uncontradicted. Thus, a 26.5% add-on to the aforesaid 602,399.21 square feet yields a total of 762,035 rentable square feet for the office component. When this figure is applied to the stabilized rental rates per square foot set forth above, the court concludes that the stabilized gross effective income for the office component for each of the tax years at issue is as follows:

TAX YEAR	STABILIZED GROSS INCOME
1995-96	$27, 433, 260
1996-97	25, 909, 190
1997-98	25, 909, 190
1998-99	29, 719, 365
1999-2000	30, 481, 400
2000-01	37, 339, 715
2001-02	41, 149, 890
2002-03	41, 911, 925
2003-04	35, 815, 645

THE THEATER COMPONENT LOT 1002

The theater component consists of a gross area of 40,421 square feet and a rentable area of 39,102 square feet. It is located primarily on the third level below grade, and is accessible only from an easement through a retail store, and has no lobby or marquee. The space was subject to a ten-year lease which commenced at the time the theater opened in 1996. The lease provides for an annual rent of $300,000.00, plus fifteen percent of box office receipts above the first $300,000.00 (Brooks' appraisal, p. 97). Both appraisers agree that the theater is severely disadvantaged by its inconvenient location, resulting in a very negative market impact (Brooks' appraisal, p. 99; Haims' appraisal, p 114). Based upon this location and layout, uniquely unfavorable as they are, the court concludes that the actual rents reported for the theater component are best reflective of market value, however much they are below the value of comparable theater leases.

"(O)ther factors may tend to qualify the reliability of actual income as a sole measure of value ... (f)or, though realized income will turn out to be the surest indicator of full value (citations omitted), when fair market rents exceed rental income the latter may ... be made to defer to more precise means of fixing a base on which to compute capitalization" [In re Merrick Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, supra, at pp. 542-543]. Consideration of the Brooks sixteen comparable theater leases (Brooks' appraisal, p. 98) does not provide sufficient information to indicate if any of them are as severely disadvantaged as the subject theatre in terms of location. Therefore, the comparable being of insufficient value in this particular instance, the actual rents would tend to offer the most reliable measure of value. Accordingly, the court adopts the actual reported rents as set forth by Brooks and declines to adopt any uncollected estimated rents in excess of the base (Brooks' appraisal, p 100). The actual rents are as follows:

color="FF0000">[*9]

TAX YEAR	BASE RENT	PERCENTAGE RENT	TOTAL RENT
1995-96	$300,000 (per stipulation)	-0-	$300,000 (per stipulation)
1996-97	$300,000 (per stipulation)	-0-	$300,000 (per stipulation)
1997-98	$300,000	$12,282	$312,282
1998-99	300,000	269,820	569,820
1999-2000	300,000	291,580	591,580
2000-01	300,000	253,244	553,244
2001-02	300,000	-0-	300,000
2002-03	300,000	-0-	300,000
2003-04	300,000	-0-	300,000

GARAGE COMPONENT—-LOT 1001

Both experts agree that the following income for the garage component, as actually reported by the landlord, fairly reflects the market (Brooks' appraisal, p. 102; Haims' appraisal, pp. 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156):

TAX YEAR	GARAGE INCOME AS REPORTED BY LANDLORD
1995-96	$480,000
1996-97	474,395
1997-98	495,210
1998-99	516,535
1999-2000	516,535
2000-01	539,779
2001-02	563,023
2002-03	563,023
2003-04	568,259

RETAIL COMPONENT—LOTS 1003-1004

The expert witnesses agreed that the retail component consists of a rentable area of 116,914 square feet. Although Haims' appraisal reported a higher rentable area (130,695 square feet), he conceded during trial that a reconfiguration of the space subsequent to the original offering plan might more accurately reflect Mr. Brooks' lower number (Tr., 8/3/05, pp. 58-59). Haims opined that the retail space was so disadvantageously configured that there were no valid comparable properties (Id, 64-65). Thus, he attributed the rentals for the space as the rentals that were negotiated pursuant to the actual leases, or when vacant, estimated rents based on the actual leases (Id, Haims' appraisal, pp. 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156).

Brooks opined that comparable rents were a more appropriate basis of valuation, and offered seventeen leases from 1994 through 2003, with adjustments for above and below grade space (Brooks' appraisal, pp. 82-96). [*10]

Giving due consideration to the opinions of two qualified experts, the court will adopt an average of the comparable rents found by Brooks and the actual rents

found by Haims, and attribute this average to the retail space :

YEAR	HAIMES ACTUAL RENTS	BROOKS COMPARABLE AVG. RENTS	ADOPTED
1995-96	$3,920,850	$4,284,015	$4,102,433
1996-97	4,574,325	4,284,015	4,429,170
1997-98	4,326,624	4,712,417	4,519,520
1998-99	3,219,354	5,140,818	4,180,086
1999-2000	4,208,247	5,140,818	4,674,533
2000-01	4,088,051	6,426,023	5,257,037
2001-02	4,576,464	8,568,030	6,572,247
2002-03	5,757,437	10,710,038	8,233,738
2003-04	4,572,783	11,781,041	8,176,912

ALL OTHER INCOME

Brooks opines that the petitioner's other sources of income, including signage rental, utilities service sales to tenants, "other" services, and "other" income, should be adopted as reported by the petitioner (Brooks' appraisal, p. 104). However, Brooks opines that for the years in which no signage income was actually received, a market estimate should be included (Id). The court declines to adopt an estimate where no actual income was received and will credit actual income as set forth in petitioner's appraisal (Haims' appraisal, pp. 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152 and 156):

TAX YEAR	SUM OF ALL OTHER INCOME
1995-96	$99,686.00
1996-97	142,634.00
1997-98	704,996.00
1998-99	1,584,652.00
1999-2000	2,659,186.00
2000-01	2,914,856.00
2001-02	2,707,360.00
2002-03	3,050,518.00
2003-04	3,177,930.00

[*11]

INCOME CONCLUSION

Adding income from all sources together, the court finds that the subject property has a potential gross income in each disputed tax year as follows, and will show it in comparison with the appraisers' respective opined potential gross incomes (PGI) (See Brooks' appraisal, p. 104 and Haines' appraisal, pp. 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154 and 156):

VACANCY AND COLLECTION LOSS

The experts opined vacancy and loss factors based upon their respective analyses of the market, which were widely disparate. However, neither was especially persuasive on the subject, and the court will adopt an average of their respective vacancy and collection loss (VCL) percentage conclusions. The court adopts Brooks' approach to application, in that the rate will only be applied to reduce the potential gross income from estimated rents credited herein, and not to actual rents (Brooks' appraisal, p.108). Estimated rents were adopted for the office and retail components of the subject property, but actual rents were adopted for the garage and theater components, and for other income (Id). It would be inappropriate to apply a vacancy and collection loss estimate to actual income, inasmuch as actual income already necessarily has all of its loss factors included (Id, compare with Haims' appraisal, p. 115).

TAX YEAR	HAIMS' PGI	BROOKS' PGI	ADOPTED PGI
1995-96	$24,915,583	$39,074,857	$32,415,379
1996-97	28,574,376	39,204,020	31,255,389
1997-98	29,691,527	39,760,252	31,941,198
1998-99	33,032,514	43,814,044	36,570,458
1999-2000	38,417,397	45,321,984	38,923,234
2000-01	44,617,984	54,140,402	46,604,631
2001-02	37,723,882	60,892,915	51,292,520
2002-03	42,393,405	59,349,363	54,059,204
2003-04	39,855,917	57,844,201	48,038,746

TAX YEAR	HAIMS' VCL %	BROOKS'VCL%	ADOPTED VCL%	COMBINED RETAIL & OFFICE GP I (ADOPTED)	RETAIL & OFFICE VCL REDUCTION
1995-96	15.95	7.33	11.64	$31,535,693	$3,670,755
1996-97	14.79	5.49	10.14	30,338,360	3, 076,310
1997-98	11.85	3.81	7.83	30,428,711	2,3 82,568
1998-99	8.75	2.27	5.51	33,899,451	1,86 7,860
1999-2000	7.73	.95	4.34	35,155,933	1,5 25,736
2000-01	6.77	1.59	4.18	42,596,752	1,78 0,544
2001-02	8.78	1.02	4.90	47,722,137	2,33 8,385
2002-03	11.91	2.42	7.17	50,145,663	3,5 95,444
2003-04	12.13	3.95	8.04	43,992,557	3,5 37,002

EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME

When vacancy and collection losses are deducted from potential gross income, the Building's effective gross income is as follows:

OPERATING EXPENSES [*13]

Respondents agree that the actual operating expenses reported by the petitioner are within the range of comparable expenses as determined by the market in each disputed tax year (Brooks' appraisal, p 122). Accordingly, the court will adopt the operating expenses as set forth by respondents (Id) and deduct them from the effective gross income as found by the court hereinabove.

TAX YEAR INCOME	POTENTIAL GROSS INCOME	VCL REDUCTION	EFFECTIVE GR.
1995-96	$32,415,379	$3,670,755	$28,744,624
1996-97	31,255,389	3,076,310	28,179,079
1997-98	31,941,198	2,382,568	29,558,630
1998-99	36,570,458	1,867,860	34,702,598
1999-2000	38,923,234	1,525,736	37,397,498
2000-01	46,604,631	1,780,544	44,824,087
2001-02	51,292,520	2,338,385	48,954,135
2002-03	54,059,204	3,595,444	50,463,760
2003-04	48,038,746	3,537,002	44,501,744

ESTIMATED LEASING COMMISSIONS

Inasmuch as the office component was primarily owner occupied, stabilized leasing commissions must be estimated. Brooks makes a persuasive argument for computing the estimate as a standard 2.7% of office and retail rents in every tax year (Brooks' appraisal, pp. 109-110). Haims' methodology demonstrates less clarity (Haims' appraisal p. 120, et seq.). Accordingly the court will calculate a 2.7% commission based on the court's rental conclusions for office and retail income and deduct that amount from effective gross income as follows:

[*14]

TAX YEAR INCOME	EFFECTIVE GROSS REDUCTION	OPERATING EXPENSE	RESULT
1995-96	$28,444,624	$8,099,574	$20,345,050
1996-97	27,879,079	8,750,326	19,128,753
1997-98	29,558,630	9,825,832	19,732,798
1998-99	34,702,598	9,972,999	24,729,599
1999-2000	37,397,498	10,051,389	27,346,109
2000-01	44,824,087	10,524,106	34,299,981
2001-02	48,954,135	11,641,867	37,312,268
2002-03	50,463,760	11,982,282	38,481,478
2003-04	44,501,744	12,381,292	32,120,452

TAX YEAR	COMBINED ADOPT. RETAIL & OFFICE RENTS	MULTIP. by .027	EGI LESS OPEREXPENSES	RESULT
1995-96	$31,535,693	$851,464	$20,645,050	$19, 793,586
1996-97	30,338,360	819,136	19,428,753	18,609, 617
1997-98	30,428,711	821,575	19,732,798	18,911, 223
1998-99	33,899,451	915,285	24,729,599	23,814, 314
1999-2000	35,155,933	949,210	27,346,109	26,39 6,899
2000-01	42,596,752	1,150,112	34,299,981	33,14 9,869
2001-02	47,722,137	1,288,498	37,312,268	36,02 3,770
2002-03	50,145,663	1,353,933	38,481,478	37,12 7,545
2003-04	43,992,557	1,187,799	32,120,452	30,93 2,653

TENANT CONCESSIONS

It remains only to calculate and deduct an estimated cost of tenant concessions in order to determine the subject property's net operating income. The court will adopt Brooks' methodology for calculating tenant rent concessions, and landlord's contribution to tenant improvements ("TI"), as a percentage of rent based on comparable leases in other buildings and discount the combined percentage by fifty percent (Brooks' appraisal, pp. 105-107, 111-113) as more nearly reflective of the market. The court will make this deduction against the adopted rents for both the office and retail components of the Building, crediting Haims' opinion that "retail and office space will command a similar leasing concession package under stabilized market conditions." (Haims' appraisal, p. 120).

TAX YEAR	TI ALLOWANCE % OF RENT x .50	FREE RENT % OF RENT x .50	COMB. RETAIL & OFFICE GPI	TENANT IMP. & FREE RENT REDUCTION
1995-96	7.32%	7.31%	$31,355,893	$2,293,684
1996-97	8.46	6.88	30,338,360	2,326,952
1997-98	8.11	5.96	30,428,711	2,140,660
1998-99	6.75	5.07	33,899,451	2,003,458
1999-2000	6.65	3.63	35,155,933	1,807,015
2000 -01	5.50	2.74	42,596,752	1,754,986
2001-02	3.93	2.12	47,722,137	1,443,595
2002-03	3.77	1.54	50,145,663	1,331,367
2003-04	2.90	3.06	43,992,557	1,310,978

NET OPERATING INCOME

[*15]

CAPITALIZATION RATE

The rate of return on investment that a property owner may expect from the market is the factor by which the net operating income is employed to determine the market value of the building (Brooks' appraisal, p. 124). After establishing a basic capitalization rate, both experts agree that such rate must be augmented by the product of the 45% equalization rate times the Building's Class IV tax rate ("loaded cap rate") (Haims' appraisal, p. 123; Brooks' appraisal p. 127). Following are the basic capitalization rates opined by the respective experts (Haimes' appraisal, pp. 127-135; Brooks' appraisal, p. 127):

TAX YEAR	EFF. GR. INC. LESS OPER. EXP.	FREE RENT & TI. REDUCTION	NET OPERATING INC.
1995-96	$19,793,586	$ 2,293,684	$17,499,902
1996-97	18,609,617	2,326,952	16,282,665
1997-98	18,911,223	2,140,660	16,770,563
1998-99	23,814,314	2,003,458	21,810,856
1999-2000	26,396,899	1,807,015	24,589,884
2000-01	33,149,869	1,754,986	31,394,883
2001-02	36,023,770	1,443,595	34,580,175
2002-03	37,127,545	1,331,367	35,796,178
2003-04	30,932,653	1,310,978	29,621,675

TAX YEAR	HAIMS' CAP RATE AS A PERCENTAGE	BROOKS' CAP RATE AS A PERCENTAGE
1995-96	10.80	9.25
1996-97	9.60	9.00
1997-98	10.30	8.45
1998-99	8.80	8.39
1999-2000	9.60	7.84
2000-01	10.00	8.64
2001-02	9.80	8.75
2002-03	9.60	8.35
2003-04	8.10	8.02

Brooks, however, formulates his basic capitalization rate by first applying the Band of Investment analysis, as defined in The Appraisal of Real Estate, Twelfth Edition, Appraisal Institute, which results in higher capitalization rates, much closer to the rates opined by Haims, as follows (Brooks' Appraisal, pp. 124-126):

TAX YEAR	HAIMES' BASIC CAP.RATE	BROOKS' BAND OF INVEST. CAP. RATE
1995-96	10.80	10.45
1996-97	9.60	9.43
1997-98	10.30	9.77
1998-99	8.80	9.16
1999-2000	9.60	8.86
2000-01	10.00	9.66
2001-02	9.80	9.87
2002-03	9.60	9.30
2003-04	8.10	9.03

To derive the lower basic capitalization rates which Brooks adopted, he compared the rates derived from the band of investment method by weighting them against recognized mortgage surveys and rates that applied to recent comparable sales (Id, p. 126). Brooks' purpose in doing so is unclear, inasmuch as he already has a recognized method of calculating capitalization rates in the band of investment analysis. The consequence of doing so results in lower capitalization rates computed against the net operating income, thus raising the market value for tax purposes. Accordingly, the court will adopt petitioner's capitalization rates, augmented by the loaded cap rate, and apply that against the net operating income to derive the subject property's market value and assessments, as follows:

TAX YEAR	NET OP. INC.	CAP. RATE	MARKET VALUATION
1995-96	$17,499,902	14.38%	$121,696,119
1996-97	16,282,665	14.15	115,071,837
1997-98	16,770,563	14.63	114,631,326
1998-99	21,810,856	13.82	157,820,955
1999-2000	24,589,884	13.60	180,807,971
2000-01	31,394,883	14.44	217,416,087
2001-02	34,580,175	13.90	248,778,237
2002-03	35,796,178	14.68	243,843,170
2003-04	29,621,675	13.99	211,734,632

VALUATION CONCLUSIONS

When the market valuations are multiplied by the 45% equalization rate stipulated to by the parties, the result is the assessed valuation for the Building as [*16]determined by the court. The court's findings are shown for comparison with the current assessments as follows:

TAX YEAR	COURT ASSESSED VALUATION	CURRENT ASSESSMENT
1995-96	$54,763,258	$75,315,600
1996-97	51,782,326	75,330,000
1997-98	51,584,097	78,738,750
1998-99	71,019,430	81,956,250
1999-2000	81,363,587	83,353,500
2000-01	97,837,239	86,476,500
2001-02	111,950,207	97,191,500
2002-03	109,729,428	92,362,500
2003-04	95,280,584	95,899,500

Having thus determined the value of the Building, the court must next determine the value of each lot as RPL § 339-y[1](b) provides that the aggregate of the assessments of the units shall in "no event exceed the total valuation of the property were the property assessed as a parcel." See, East Medical Center, L.P. v. Town of Manlius, 16 AD3d 1119 (4th Dept. 2005).

Regarding the vacancy and collections loss, the court has determined above that this deduction would be made only from the office and retail components of the property. Also, the court adopted a vacancy and loss reduction rate for each disputed tax year and reduced the combined gross potential income for the retail and office components accordingly. To determine the amount to be deducted from the retail component's gross potential income, the court must apportion the combined loss based on the rates of the retail gross potential income, to the combined gross potential income for the retail and office components, and reduce the effective income accordingly as follows:

[*17]

TAX YR	RETAIL GPI	% OF C'BINED GPI	X OF C'BINED VCL	RETAIL VCL REDUCTN	RETAIL GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME
1995-96	$4,102,433	15%	$3,670,755	$550,613	$3,551,820
1996-97	4,429,170	17%	3,076,310	522,973	3,906,197
1997-98	4,519,520	17.5%	2,382,568	416,949	4,102,571
1998-99	4,180,086	14%	1,867,860	261,500	3,918,586
1999-2000	4,674,533	15%	1,525,767	228,865	4,445,668
2000-2001	5,257,037	14%	1,780,544	249,276	5,007,065
2001-2002	6,572,247	16%	2,332,385	373,182	6,199,065
2002-2003	8,233,738	20%	3,594,444	713,182	7,514,849
2003-2004	8,176,912	23%	3,572,002	821,560	7,355,352

The gross effective income must be reduced further by the cost of brokers' commissions, which the court previously found to be at the rate of 2.7% of the combined

office and retail rents. The combined brokers' commission must be apportioned to the retail component based on the ratio of the retail gross potential income to the combined gross potential income, as shown previously herein in relation to the vacancy and loss deduction, and the result deducted from the effective gross income as follows:

TAX YR	RETAIL GPI AS A PERCENTAGE OF COMBINED GPI	X COMBINED RETAIL & OFFICE COMMISSIONS	LEASING COMMISSION REDUCTION	ADJ. GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME
1995-96	15%	$851,464	$127,720	$3,424,100
1996-97	17%	819,136	139,253	3,766,944
1997-98	17.5%	821,575	143,776	3,958,795
1998-99	14%	915,285	128,140	3,790,446
1999-2000	15%	949,210	142,382	4,303,286
2000-01	14%	1,150,112	161,016	4,846,745
2001-02	16%	1,288,498	206,160	5,992,905
2002-03	20%	1,353,933	270,787	7,244,062
2003-04	23%	1,187,799	273,194	7,082,158

The retail adjusted gross effective income must be reduced further by the allowance for tenant concessions. The court determined above that the allowances for free rent and tenant improvements would be applied only to the retail and office components gross potential incomes combined. Therefore, the portion attributable to the retail component must be deducted according to the ratio previously applied, as follows:

TAX YR	RETAIL FREE RENT & TENANT IMP. AS A PERCENTAGE OF COMBINED RETAIL & OFFICE ALLOWANCE	X COMBINED FREE RENT & T.I. REDUCTION	AMT OF T.I. & FREE RENT RETAIL REDUCTION	FURTHER ADJ GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME
1995-96	15%	$2,306,836	$346,025	$3,078,075
1996-97	17%	2,326,952	395,582	3,371,362
1997-98	17.5%	2,140,660	374,616	3,584,179
1998-99	14%	2,003,458	280,484	3,509,962
1999-2000	15%	1,807,015	271,052	4,032,234
2000-01	14%	1,754,986	245,698	4,601,047
2001-02	16%	1,443,595	230,975	5,761,930
2002-03	20%	1,331,367	266,273	6,977.789
2003-04	23%	1,310,978	301,525	6,780,633

It remains only to deduct the operating expenses attributable to the retail component, fixed by stipulation between the parties dated January 19, 2007, and hereby incorporated into the record.

TAX YEAR	FURTHER ADJ. GR. EFFECTIVE INCOME	REDUCED BY STIP. RETAIL OPERATING EXPENSES	NET OPERATING INCOME
1995-96	$3,078,075	$505,408	$2,572,667
1996-97	3,371,362	518,367	2,852,995
1997-98	3,584,179	531,658	3,052,521
1998-99	3,509,962	545,291	2,964,671
1999-2000	4,032,234	559,273	3,472,961
2000-01	4,601,047	573,613	4,027,434
2001-02	5,761,930	588,321	5,173,609
2002-03	6,977,789	603,406	6,374,383
2003-04	6,780,633	619,303	6,161,330

Dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate previously determined will show the market value of the retail component, and when that quotient is multiplied by the stipulated 45 per cent equalization ratio, the assessed valuation of this tax lot is determined.

[*19]

TAX YEAR	NET OPER. INCOME	LOADED CAP. RATE	MKT VALUE	MULTIPLIED BY .45=A.V.
1995-96	$2,572,667	14.38%	$17,890,591	$8,050, 766
1996-97	2,852,995	14.15%	20,162,509	9,073,129
1997-98	3,052,521	14.63%	20,864,805	9,389,162
1998-99	2,964,671	13.82%	21,452,033	9,653,415
1999-2000	3,472,961	13.60%	25,536,478	11,491, 415
2000-01	4,027,434	14.44%	27,890,817	12,550,86 8
2001-02	5,173,609	13.90%	37,220,209	16,749,09 4
2002-03	6,374,374	14.68%	43,422,228	19,540,00 3
2003-04	6,161,330	13.99%	44,040,958	19,818,43 1

The corrected assessed valuations for Lots 1003 &1004 may be compared to current assessed valuations as follows:

TAX YEAR	CURRENT ASSESSED VAL.	CORRECTED ASSESSED VAL.	AMT OF OVER ASSESSMENT
1995-96	$8,685,000	$8,056,766	$634,234
1996-97	8,685,000	9,073,129	-0-
1997-98	10,743,000	9,389,162	1,353,838
1998-99	11,193,750	9,653,587	1,540,335
1999-2000	11,218,500	11,491,415	-0-
2000-01	11,934,000	12,550,868	-0-
2001-02	13,059,000	16,749,094	-0-
2002-03	13,545,000	19,540,003	-0-
2003-04	16,038,000	19,818,431	-0-

For the garage component Lot1001 the court previously determined herein that no deductions were to be made against the income for vacancy and loss, leasing commissions or free rent and tenant improvements. Accordingly, the only deduction that needs to be made from garage component income is that portion of the operating expenses to which the parties stipulated.

TAX YEAR	TOTAL RENT	OPERATING EXP. REDUCTION	NET OPERATING INCOME
1995-96	$480,000	$18,429	$461,571
1996-97	474,395	18,429	455,966
1997-98	495,210	18,797	476,413
1998-99	516,535	19,166	497,369
1999-2000	516,535	19,534	497,001
2000-01	539,779	20,271	519,508
2001-02	563,023	20,640	542,383
2002-03	563,023	21,377	541,646
2003-04	568,259	22,114	546,145

With the net operating income fixed, the market value and the assessed value of [*20]

Lot 1001 may be calculated as follows:

TAX YEAR	NET OPER INCOME	LOADED CAP RATE	MKT VALUE	MULTIPLIED BY .45=A. V.
1995-96	$461,571	14.38%	$3,209,812	$1,444,41 5
1996-97	455,966	14.15%	3,222,375	1,450,069
1997-98	476,413	14.63%	3,256,411	1,465,385
1998-99	497,369	13.82%	3,598,907	1,619,508
1999-2000	497,001	13.60%	3,654,419	1,644,489
2000-01	519,508	14.44%	3,597,701	1,618,965
2001-02	542,383	13.90%	3,902,036	1,755,916
2002-03	541,646	14.68%	3,689,687	1,660,359
2003-04	546,145	13.99%	3,903,824	1,756,721

The corrected assessments may be compared to the current assessments as follows:

TAX YEAR	CURRENT ASSESSED VAL	CORRECTED ASSESSED VAL	AMT OF OVER ASSESSMENT
1995-96	$1,080,000	$1,444,415	-0-
1996-97	1,170,000	1,450,069	-0-
1997-98	1,170,000	1,465,385	-0-
1998-99	1,237,500	1,619,508	-0-
1999-2000	1,260,000	1,644,489	-0-
2000-01	1,350,000	1,618,965	-0-
2001-02	1,440,000	1,755,916	-0-
2002-03	1,530,000	1,660,359	-0-
2003-04	1,566,000	1,756,721	-0

Concerning Lot 1002, the theater component, the court previously determined, as with the garage component, that there would be no deductions against potential gross income for vacancy and loss, leasing commissions, or for tenant improvements and free rent. Therefore the only deductions to be made against net operating income will be for operating expenses as per the aforesaid stipulation between the parties.

TAX YEAR	TOTAL RENT REDUCTION	OPERATING INC	NET OPERATING INCOME
1995-96	$300,000	$35,192	$264,808-
1996-97	$300,000	35,192	$264,808
1997-98	$312,282	36,365	$275,917
1998-99	569,820	37,558	532,262
1999-2000	591,580	38,711	552,869
2000-01	553,244	39,884	513,360
2001-02	300,000	41,057	258,943
2002-03	300,000	42,230	257,770
2003-04	300,000	43,403	256,597

Upon the foregoing net operating income, the capitalized market values

TAX YEAR	NET OPER. INCOME	LOADED CAP RATE	MKT.VALUE	MULTIPLIED BY .45= A.V.
1995-96	$264,808	14.38%	$1,841,502	$828,675< /td>
1996-97	$264,808	14.15%	$1,871,435	$842,145< /td>
1997-98	$ 275,917	14.63%	$ 1,885,967	$848,685
1998-99	532,282	13.82%	3,851,534	1,733,190
1999-2000	552,869	13.60%	4,065,213	1,829,346
2000-01	513,360	14.44%	3,555,125	1,599,806
2001-02	258,943	13.90 %	1,862,899	838,305
2002-03	257,770	14.68%	1,755,926	790,167
2003-04	256,597	13.99%	1,834,146	825,366

The corrected assessments (determined by the consistent application of actual rentals and expenses) may be compared to the current assessments as follows:

[*21]

TAX YEAR	CURRENT ASSESSED VAL	CORRECTED A.V.	AMT OF OVER-ASSESSMENT
1995-96	$2,025,000	-0-	$2,025,000
1996-97	2,025,000	-0-	2,025,000
1997-98	2,025,000	$848,685	1,176,315
1998-99	2,025,000	1,733,190	291,810
1999-2000	2,025,000	1,829,346	195,654
2000-01	2,092,500	1,599,806	492,694
2001-02	2,092,500	838,305	1,254,195
2002-03	2,137,500	790,167	1,347,333
2003-04	2,245,500	825,366	1,420,134

The court previously apportioned vacancy and loss deductions, leasing commission

deductions and free rent and tenant improvements reductions against the retail component based on proportion of rent contributed by the retail and office components to the total for both. The court will apply the same methodology to the computation of deductions from the office gross potential income.

TAX YEAR	COMBINED RETAIL & OFFICE VAC & CREDIT LOSS	OFFICE SHARE OF COMBINED GPI AS A PERCENT	AMT OF OFFICE VCL REDUCTION
1995-96	$3,670,755	85%	$3,120,142
1996-97	3,076,310	83%	2,553,337
1997-98	2,382,568	82.5%	1,965,619
1998-99	1,867,860	86%	1,606,360
1999-2000	1,525,767	85%	1,296,902
2000-01	1,780,544	86%	1,531,268
2001-02	2,332,385	84%	1,959,203
2002-03	3,594,444	80%	2,875,555
2003-04	3,572,002	77%	2,750,442

When the amount of the vacancy and credit loss is deducted from the gross potential income for the office component, the resulting gross effective income is shown as follows:

[*22]

The office gross effective income will be reduced by the expenses of leasing commissions as follows:

TAX YEAR	OFFICE GPI	OFFICE VCL REDUCTION	OFFICE GROSS EFFECTIVE INC.
1995-96	$27,433,260	$ 3,120,142	$24,313,118
1996-97	25,909,190	2,553,337	23,355,853
1997-98	25,909,190	1,965,619	23,943,571
1998-99	29,719,365	1,606,360	28,113,005
1999-2000	30,481,400	1,296,902	29,184,498
2000-01	37,339,715	1,531,268	35,808,447
2001-02	41,149,890	1,959,203	39,190,687
2002-03	41,911,925	2,875,555	39,036,370
2003-04	35,815,645	2,750,442	33,065,203

< td>22,675,970< td>27,325,860

TAX YR	GR. EFF. INCOME (OFFICE)	COMBINED RETAIL & OFF. COMMISSIONS	OFFICE SHARE AS A %	LEASING COMM. REDUCT.	ADJ. GR. EFF. OFFICE INCOME
1995-96	$24,313,118	$851,464	85%	$723,744	$23,589,374
1996-97	23,355,853	819,136	83%	679,883
1997-98	23,943,571	821,575	82.5%	677,799	23,265,772
1998-99	28,113,005	915,285	86%	787,145
1999-2000	29,184,498	949,210	85%	806,829	28,377,669
2000-01	35,808,447	1,150,112	86%	989,096	34,819,351
2001-02	39,190,687	1,288,498	84%	1,082,338	38,108,349
2002-03	39,036,370	1,353,933	80%	1,083,146	37,953,224
2003-04	33,065,203	1,187,799	77%	914,605	32,150,598

The proportionate reduction for free rent and tenant improvements is now applied.

TAX YR	COMBINED OFFICE & RETAIL ALLOWANCE FOR T.I. & FREE RENT	OFFICE SHARE AS A PERCENT	T.I. & FREE RENT RE DUCTION	FURTHER ADJ. GR. EFF. INC.
1995-96	$2,306,836	85%	$1,960,811	$21,628,56 3
1996-97	2,326,952	83%	1,931,370	20, 744,600
1997-98	2,140,660	82.5%	1,766,045	21,499,727< /td>
1998-99	2,003,458	86%	1,722,974	26,602,886
1999-2000	1,807,015	85%	1,535,963	26,841,706
2000-01	1,754,986	86%	1,508,514	33,310,837
2001-02	1,443,595	84%	1,212,620	36,895,729
2002-03	1,331,367	80%	1,049,994	36,903,230
2003-04	1,310,978	77%	1,009,453	31,141,145

To the further adjusted gross income must now be added "all other income reported," which the parties agree is attributable to the office component.

[*23]

Finally, the, operating expenses, stipulated by the parties, is deducted to realize the

net operating income:

TAX YEAR	FURTHER ADJ. OFFICE GR. EFF. INCOME	ALL OTHER EFF. OFFICE INCOME	FINAL ADJ. GR. INC.
1995-96	$21,628,563	$99,686	$21,728,249
1996-97	20,744,600	142,634	20,887,234
1997-98	21,499,727	704,996	22,204,723
1998-99	25,602,886	1,584,652	27,187,538
1999-2000	26,841,706	2,659,186	29,500,892
2000-01	33,310,837	2,914,856	36,225,693
2001-02	36,895,729	2,707,360	39,603,089
2002-03	36,903,230	3,050,518	39,953,748
2003-04	31,741,145	3,177,930	34,319,075

The market value and corrected assessed valuation are then calculated as follows:

TAX YEAR	FINAL GR. EFF. OFFICE INC.	STIP. OFFICE OPERATING EXP. REDUCTION	NET OPERATING INC.
1995-96	$21,728,249	$7,540,546	$14,187,703
1996-97	20,887,234	8,178,339	12,708,895
1997-98	22,204,723	9,239,012	12,965,711
1998-99	27,187,538	9,371,005	17,816,533
1999-2000	29,500,892	9,433,871	20,067,021
2000-01	36,225,693	9,890,338	26,335,355
2001-02	39,603,089	10,991,849	28,611,240
2002-03	39,953,748	11,305,269	28,648,479
2003-04	34,319,075	11,696,472	22,622,603

TAX YEAR	NET.OPER. INCOME	LOADED CAP. RATE	MKT.VALUE	MULTIPLIED BY .45= A.V.
1995-96	$14,187,703	14.38%	$98,662,747	$44,3 98,236
1996-97	12,708,895	14.15%	89,815,512	40,416,9 80
1997-98	12,965,711	14.63%	88,624,135	39,880,8 61
1998-99	17,816,533	13.82%	128,918,473	58,013, 313
1999-2000	20,067,021	13.60%	147,515,625	66,3 98,231
2000-01	26,335,355	14.44%	182,377,805	82,070, 012
2001-02	28,611,240	13.90%	205,836,259	92,626, 317
2002-03	28,648,479	14.68%	195,153,127	87,818, 907
2003-04	22,622,603	13.99%	161,705,553	72,767, 499

[*24]

The corrected assessed valuations may be compared to the current assessed valuations as follows:

TAX YEAR	CURRENT A. V.	CORRECTED A. V.	AMT. OF REDUCTION
1995-96	$63,525,600	$44,398,236	$19,127,364
1996-97	63,450,000	40,416,980	23,033,020
1997-98	64,800,000	39,880,861	24,919,139
1998-99	67,500,000	58,013,313	9,486,687
1999-2000	68,850,000	66,398,231	2,451,769
2000-01	71,100,000	82,070,012	-0-
2001-02	75,600,000	92,626,317	-0-
2002-03	75,150,000	87,818,907	-0-
2003-04	76,050,000	72,767,499	328,250

As mandated by RPL § 339-y[1](b), the individual lot assessed valuations must be totaled for each year to determine if they exceed the valuation for the building as a whole:

TAX YEAR	TOTAL OF INDIV. LOTS	WHOLE BUILD. ASS'D. VALUE	EXCESS AMOUNT	PERCENT OF EXCESS>WHOLE BUILDING (ROUNDED)
1995-96	$54,722,092	$54,763,258	-0-	-0-%
1996-97	51,782,323	51,782,327	-0-	-0-
1997-98	51,584,093	51,584,100	-0-	-0-
1998-99	71,019,426	71,019,430	-0-	-0-
1999-2000	81,363,481	81,363,484	-0-	-0-
2000-01	97,839,651	97,837,239	2,412	.002 %
2001-02	111,969,632	111,950,207	19,425	.02%
2002-03	109,809,436	109,729,428	80,008	.07%
2003-04	95,168,017	95,280,584	-0-	-0-

[*25]

Accordingly, all assessed valuations found herein must be reduced by the same

percentage of excess over the total assessed valuations for the whole building for all years in which an excess is indicated.

RETAIL COMPONENT
LOTS 1003-1004 < /tr>

TAX YEAR	CORRECTED A.V.	PERCENT OF REDUCT.	FINAL CORR. A.V.	AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT REDUCTION
1995-96	$8,050,766	.1%	$8,042,715	$642,285
1996-97	9,073,129	.2%	9,054,983	-0-
1997-98	9,389,162	-0-	9,389,162	1,353,838
1998-99	9,653,415	-0-	9,653,415	1,540,335
1999-2000	11,491,415	-0-	11,491,415	-0-
2000-01	12,550,868	.002%	12,550,617	-0-
2001-02	16,749,094	.02%	16,745,244	-0-
2002-03	19,540,003	.07%	19,526,325	-0-
2003-04	19,818,431	-0-	19,818,431	-0

THEATER COMPONENT

LOT 1002

TAX YEAR	CORRECTED A.V.	PERCENT OF REDUCTION	FINAL CORR. A. V.	AMOUNT OF A. V. REDUCT.
1995-96	$828,675	-0-	$828,675	$1,196,325
1996-97	$842,145	-0-	$842,145	1,182,855
1997-98	$848,685	-0-	$848,685	1,176,315
1998-99	1,733,190	-0-	1,733,190	291,810
1999-2000	1,829,346	-0-	1,829,346	195,654
2000-01	1,599,806	.002%	1,599,774	492,726
2001-02	838,305	.02%	838,137	1,254,363
2002-03	790,167	.07%	789,298	1,348,202
2003-04	825,366	-0-	825,366	1,420,134