PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (1) the presumed validity of the property assessment in this case was overcome below when it was shown, without dispute, that the defendant property appraiser [Frank Bystrom]: (a) failed to obtain, although available, the actual income data on the subject property from the plaintiff taxpayer [Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.] when utilizing the income approach to valuation herein [and did not by alternative methods make up for said deficiency]; and (b) thereby failed to substantially comply with Section 193.011(7), Florida Statutes (1981), in assessing the subject property in this case. Palm Corporation v. Homer, 261 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1972); Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 416 So.2d 1133, 1145-47 (Fla. 1982) (Pearson, Daniel, J. and Hubbart, C.J., concurring); (2) the plaintiff taxpayer [Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.] produced substantial, competent evidence below upon which a trier of fact could conclude, as it did, that by the greater weight of the evidence the just valuation of the subject property was $37,500,000, Bystrom v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, supra; see also Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976); and (3) the remaining points urged herein are insufficient to upset the judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.