ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
On a prior appeal, this court upheld an order compelling the appellant to submit its real estate tax assessment disputes to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in the parties' "payments in lieu of taxes" (hereinafter PILOT) agreement (see, Mtr. of Town of Wallkill Indust. Dev. Agency v. Assessor of Town of Wallkill, 270 A.D.2d 494). Contrary to the appellant's contentions, it did not demonstrate its entitlement to any relief from the clear and unambiguous terms of the arbitration clause, which provides that each of the three parties to the PILOT agreement select one qualified real estate appraiser as an arbitrator (see, Kushlin v. Bialer, 32 A.D.2d 217; cf., Matter of Di Stasio, 21 N.Y.2d 665, revg on dissent at 27 A.D.2d 726; Matter of Mecca v. Staten Is. Radiological Associates, 167 A.D.2d 543). The appellant entered into the PILOT agreement with its "business eyes open" and eagerly accepted the benefits of the deal that enabled it to build its shopping center. It may not obtain relief now because it perceives that the terms of the arbitration clause are disadvantageous (see, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. New York City Trans. Auth., 82 N.Y.2d 47, 54).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.