Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"It is firmly established that the decision of whether to grant declaratory relief is discretionary in character" ( Smyley v Tejada, 171 AD2d 660, 661; see also, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, cert denied 464 US 993). Courts are reluctant to grant a declaratory judgment where adequate relief may be obtained in some other way ( see, Murray Hill Invs. v Adas Yereim, Inc., 226 AD2d 602). It is a proper exercise of discretion for the Supreme Court to convert a declaratory judgment action to a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 rather than dismiss the case outright ( see, CPLR 103 [c]; Matter of First Natl. City Bank v City of New York Fin. Admin., 36 NY2d 87, 94; Board of Edvc. v Allen, 25 AD2d 659).
In the opinion of the Office of Real Property Services, the defendant Royal Dutchess Properties, Inc., is an "agency of the State". When the action of a State agency or officer is challenged, a declaratory judgment action is not the proper vehicle when review by way of a CPLR article 78 proceeding is available ( see, Greystone Mgt. Corp. v Conciliation Appeals Bd., 62 NY2d 763; Jackson v Biderman, 151 AD2d 400, 401). Here, the court acted within its discretion in converting the declaratory judgment action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding and we find no reason to disturb that determination ( see, Vantage Petroleum, Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review, 61 NY2d 695; Smyley v Tejada, supra; Conrad v Regan, 155 AD2d 931).
Having properly converted the action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding pursuant to CPLR 103 (c), the court correctly transferred the proceeding to the Supreme Court, Albany County ( see, CPLR 506 [b] [2]; Matter of Posner v Rockefeller, 33 AD2d 683, affd 25 NY2d 720).