
    In the Matter of Town of Greenburgh, Appellant, v New York State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Respondent.
    [643 NYS2d 409]
   The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the methodology for computing its equalization rate was not rational and that the equalization rate was not supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Town of Greenburgh v New York State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 226 AD2d 546; Matter of Town of Harrison v New York State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 226 AD2d 548; Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v New York State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 209 AD2d 765, 766; Matter of City of White Plains v New York State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 205 AD2d 771, 772; Matter of Town of Patterson v State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 168 AD2d 820, 821). Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.  