Smerecki ex rel. Smerecki v. Keough

• Decision Date: 13 December 2012
• Citation: 956 N.Y.S.2d 279,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08618,101 A.D.3d 1338
• Parties: In the Matter of Mary SMERECKI, on Behalf of Janina SMERECKI, Appellant, v. Kevin P. KEOUGH, as Director of Broome County Real Property Tax Service, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 1338
956 N.Y.S.2d 279
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08618

In the Matter of Mary SMERECKI, on Behalf of Janina SMERECKI, Appellant,
v.
Kevin P. KEOUGH, as Director of Broome County Real Property Tax Service, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Dec. 13, 2012.

Elizabeth V. Marchionni, Binghamton, for appellant.

Robert G. Behnke, County Attorney, Binghamton, for respondent.

Before: MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, STEIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.

MERCURE, J.P.

[101 A.D.3d 1338]Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered April 3, 2012 in Broome County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's request

[956 N.Y.S.2d 280]

for a hardship sell-back of certain real property.

[101 A.D.3d 1339]Petitioner is the daughter and attorney-in-fact of Janina Smerecki, the former owner of real property located in the Town of Sanford, Broome County. In November 2010, respondent commenced an RPTL article 11, in rem proceeding to foreclose delinquent tax liens on the property. Neither Smerecki nor petitioner filed an answer; rather, in September 2011, petitioner requested a “hardship sell-back” of the property based upon her mother's deteriorating physical and mental condition. Respondent denied the request, and Broome County acquired title to the property via an October 2011 judgment ( seeRPTL 1123[8]; 1136[3] ). Petitioner appealed respondent's denial of her sell-back request to the Finance Committee of the Broome County Legislature, which affirmed, prompting this proceeding. Supreme Court, finding no “evidence of fraud or illegality,” and also finding a “rational[ ] basis” for respondent's determination, dismissed the petition. Upon petitioner's appeal, we now affirm.

Inasmuch as it is undisputed that the tax lien was valid and respondent followed all proper procedures in foreclosing the lien, “any property interests held by [Smerecki] were lawfully extinguished as of the expiration of the [ ] right to redemption and the entry of the judgment of foreclosure” ( Matter of Orange County Commr. of Fin. [Helseth], 18 N.Y.3d 634, 640, 942 N.Y.S.2d 442, 965 N.E.2d 944 [2012] ). That is, the County had no legal obligation to sell the property back once the valid judgment of foreclosure awarded it title ( see Quick v. County of Broome, 302 A.D.2d 788, 789, 754 N.Y.S.2d 918 [2003];Key Bank of Cent. N.Y. v. County of Broome, 116...