Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The trial court properly rejected the method of valuation used by the claimant's appraiser. It is improper to value property based on the capitalization of a nonexistent stream of income from a projected future improvement when the direct sales comparison method is available (see, Matter of City of New York [Atlantic Improvement Corp.], 28 N.Y.2d 465, 470-471; Arlen of Nanuet v State of New York, 26 N.Y.2d 346, 352-353; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Neptune Assocs., 190 A.D.2d 669; Matter of City of New York [Chestnut Props. Co.], 39 A.D.2d 573, affd 34 N.Y.2d 800). In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in accepting the comparables offered by the defendant's appraiser (see, Levin v State of New York, 13 N.Y.2d 87, 92; Matter of Phelps Dodge Indus. v Kondzielaski, 131 A.D.2d 675, 678; Chase Manhattan Bank v State of New York, 103 A.D.2d 211, 222). We therefore find no basis for disturbing the trial court's findings as to the value of the subject property. Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.