
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Syracuse Trust Company, as Trustee and Administrator with the Will Annexed of Katherine M. Simms, Deceased, Appellant, against Joseph L. Matt et al., as Assessors of the City of Utica, et al., Respondents.
    Argued April 18, 1940;
    decided June 14, 1940.
    
      
      William H. Harding and A. V. W. Hancock for appellant.
    The reduction in the value of the premises to $550,000 as found by the Special Term was amply justified by the credible evidence. (People ex rel. Luce v. Lewis, 257 App. Div. 724; People ex rel. Powers v. Kalbfleisch, 25 App. Div. 432; 156 N. Y. 678.) The equalization rate was properly applied to the valuation of the premises. (People ex rel. Mayor v. McCarthy, 102 N. Y. 630; Mayor v. Davenport, 92 N. Y. 604; People ex rel. Universal Business Corp. v. Lewis, 267 N. Y. 617; Moore v. City of Albany, 98 N. Y. 396.)
    
      Bartie Gorman, Corporation Counsel (M. Francis Malone of counsel), for respondents.
    Equalization by the County Board of Equalization so that all towns and cities of Oneida county will bear their just, proportionate share of State and county taxes was never intended to change the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60) requiring city assessors to assess at full and true value. (People ex rel. American Mfg. Co. v. Gifford, 134 Misc. Rep. 487; People ex rel. Kellogg v. Wells, 101 App. Div. 600; People ex rel. Haile v. Brundage, 195 App. Div. 745; People ex rel. Stewart v. Feitner, 95 App. Div. 481; Berkshire Life Ins. Co. v. Van Voorhis, 245 App. Div. 592; Tallmadge v. Supervisors of Rensselaer County, 21 Barb. 611; People ex rel. Queens Borough, Gas & Electric Co. v. Woodbury, 67 Misc. Rep. 481; People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Priest, 150 App. Div. 19; 206 N. Y. 274; People ex rel. Jamaica W. S. Co. v. State Board, 196 N. Y. 39.)
   Per Curiam.

We conclude that the finding of the Special Term in regard to the full true value of the property is in accord with the weight of the evidence. We agree with the Appellate Division in its disposition of the question raised as to the applicability of the equalization rate.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with the above memorandum and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears and Conway, JJ., concur; Lewis, J., votes to affirm the order of the Appellate Division in its entirety.

Ordered accordingly.  