In Jupiter Realty Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 242 Conn. 363, 373, 698 A.2d 312 (1997) as part of the decennial revaluation, the assessor valued the plaintiff's property during 1991. The plaintiff did not appeal from that assessment. In 1992, the assessor determined the assessed value of the plaintiff's property on the basis of the 1991 decennial revaluation. The plaintiff challenged that assessment in 1992, which the board refused to reduce. The Court reversed the board's decision and held that boards of tax review were not insulated from appeals from overvaluation during interim years. Id., 372. The Jupiter Realty Co. court drew an "identifiable and justifiable" distinction between "requesting a revaluation because the original revaluation was in error and requesting a revaluation because circumstances subsequent to the initial revaluation have effected a change in the present true and actual value of the property . . . ." Id., 373. The law forbids the latter because it essentially challenges the "legislatively chosen ten year revaluation time period." Id. A change in today's market conditions, resulting in a different "present" true and actual value of the property, is an insufficient basis to compel revaluation. The former, however, constitutes "a challenge to the decennial revaluation in a subsequent year seeking only to correct an already existing revaluation. It is a challenge to the manner of taxation; Uniroyal, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 182 Conn. 619, 629, 438 A.2d 782 (1981) . . . . We find no support for denying taxpayers the right to have their decennial revaluation reflect the property's true value at the time of the decennial revaluation in our case law concerning interim valuations. While the ultimate relief of interim revaluations and challenges to decennial revaluations might be similar -- a lowering of present and future assessment values -- the grounds for relief are quite distinct." Jupiter Realty Co. v. Board of Tax Review, 242 Conn. at 373-74.