Opinion
2015-03-18
In the Matter of Craig GOTTLIEB, appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.
Craig Gottlieb, Flushing, N.Y., appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.
Craig Gottlieb, Flushing, N.Y., appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of an administrative law judge of the respondent City of New York Environmental Control Board dated October 4, 2012, sustaining a notice of violation issued by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and imposing a civil penalty upon the petitioner in the sum of $400, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dufficy, J.) dated September 30, 2013, which, inter alia, granted the respondents' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) and 7809(f) to dismiss the proceeding and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In this proceeding, the petitioner sought, inter alia, to annul a determination of an administrative law judge dated October 4, 2012. Under the circumstances presented herein, we agree with the Supreme Court that the proceeding should be dismissed based on the petitioner's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. “Failure to timely file or perfect an administrative appeal constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies that precludes review pursuant to CPLR article 78” ( Matter of Palm v. King, 122 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 997 N.Y.S.2d 518, citing Matter of Plummer v. Klepak, 48 N.Y.2d 486, 489, 423 N.Y.S.2d 866, 399 N.E.2d 897; see Matter of Adams v. Evans, 92 A.D.3d 1056, 937 N.Y.S.2d 901; see also Matter of Pitts v. City of N.Y. Off. of Comptroller, 76 A.D.3d 633, 906 N.Y.S.2d 337).
The petitioner's remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.
Accordingly, we affirm the order and judgment. MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.