Opinion
July 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).
The proceeding was properly dismissed on the ground that petitioner's exclusive remedy for the reduced tax assessment she seeks is a certiorari proceeding under RPTL article 7 ( Kahal Bnei Emunim v. Town of Fallsburg, 78 N.Y.2d 194, 204). Petitioner's claim that respondent's assessment methods understate the exemptions he is entitled to under the J-51 program is not a challenge to the method employed in the assessment of several properties, but rather to an overassessment of a specific property that necessarily involved the mental observations and judgment of individual assessors in placing a value on petitioner's improvement costs ( see, Matter of Board of Mgrs. v. Board of Assessors, 202 A.D.2d 417, 419-420, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 757). "[I]n the absence of any legally mandated criteria, it is within the expertise and discretion of the Commissioner of Finance to ascertain fair market value" ( 78 S. First St. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Crotty, 150 A.D.2d 218, 222 [Milonas, J., dissenting], revd on dissenting mem 75 N.Y.2d 982). Also properly dismissed, on the ground of res judicata, was petitioner's claim alleging violation of her due process and equal protection rights and seeking to compel respondent to implement uniform, reasonable and predictable assessment standards, the parties and issues concerning such assessment standards being identical to those in a previous article 78 proceeding ( Matter of Barklee Realty Co. v. New York City Dept. of Fin., 147 A.D.2d 994; see, O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the previous proceeding did adjudicate her constitutional claims on the merits.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Tom, JJ.