Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioners challenge the real property assessment rolls of the Town of Penfield on the ground that the methods and practices employed by respondents in selecting their properties for reassessment violate the equal protection guarantees of the State and Federal Constitutions. Supreme Court properly determined that class action certification is inappropriate in this proceeding (see, Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 A.D.2d 596) and that the petition fails to state a cause of action. Because petitioners sought judgment declaring the assessment roll invalid and unconstitutional, however, the court should not have dismissed the petition without making a declaration in favor of respondents (see, Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., 73 N.Y.2d 951, 954; Pyramid Co. v Chu, 177 A.D.2d 970; Henry St. Settlement v Town of Yorktown, 93 A.D.2d 855). We modify the judgment, therefore, by reinstating the petition and by granting judgment in favor of respondents declaring that the 1993-1994 assessment roll of the Town of Penfield is valid and constitutional.