Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the petitioner was required to proceed pursuant to RPTL article 7 in order to challenge the subject property assessment (see, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. City School Dist., 59 N.Y.2d 262, 268). The petitioner's reliance on Matter of Krugman v. Board of Assessors ( 141 A.D.2d 175), was properly rejected by the court as being misplaced. Unlike the situation in Krugman, the challenge herein is not to the method employed by the Assessor, but rather to the individual reevaluation of the subject property. It is alleged that the reevaluation was a response to a complaint prompted by an allegedly political motive (cf., Samuels v. Town of Clarkson, 91 A.D.2d 836, 837). While such action would be illegal, it must be redressed in a proceeding under RPTL article 7. Since there is no claim that the Assessor engaged in more than one politically-motivated reassessment, her action cannot be classified as a methodology. Thus, the petitioner was properly precluded from mounting a collateral attack in an proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, Matter of Krugman v. Board of Assessors, supra, at 180). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.