Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioners' present contentions, the record reveals that their appraiser, in valuing the subject property, made numerous adjustments to comparable parcels which were not accompanied by the requisite facts, figures and calculations in either the appraisal or the expert testimony (see, 22 NYCRR 202.59 [g] [2]). This obvious failure to specify and quantify the aforementioned adjustments vitiated the probative value of the appraisal (see, Matter of Rusciano Son Corp. v. Roche, 118 A.D.2d 861; Matter of Resort HFA v. Finance Admin., 81 A.D.2d 617, appeal withdrawn 54 N.Y.2d 760; Matter of Stoneleigh Parkway v. Assessor of Town of Eastchester, 73 A.D.2d 918, lv denied 49 N.Y.2d 705; see also, Matter of County Dollar Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 97 A.D.2d 469, lv dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 759, rearg denied 61 N.Y.2d 905; Matter of Peck v. Obenhoff, 84 A.D.2d 633). Hence, the petitioners failed to sustain their initial burden of demonstrating an overassessment (see generally, Matter of Barnum v. Srogi, 54 N.Y.2d 896; Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Tax Commn. of City of N.Y., 85 A.D.2d 525, affd 57 N.Y.2d 964, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 824; Matter of Rock-Time, Inc. v. Finance Adm'r of City of N.Y., 75 A.D.2d 626, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 704), and the petitions were properly dismissed. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.