Opinion
12-28-2016
In the Matter of Dana WILLIAMS, appellant, v. Joseph PONTE, etc., et al., respondents.
Dana Williams, Bayshore, NY, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.
Dana Williams, Bayshore, NY, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Pamela Seider Dolgow and Ingrid R. Gustafson of counsel), for respondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction dated January 30, 2015, which terminated the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered September 29, 2015, which denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed the proceeding without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The sole issue raised by the petitioner on appeal is whether the Supreme Court had the authority to deny her petition on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice, because the respondents appeared in the proceeding and waived any objection to personal jurisdiction.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the respondents' attempts to procure an adjournment of the return date of the petition did not constitute a formal appearance in the proceeding, nor amount to a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 320 ; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Gordon, 129 A.D.3d 769, 11 N.Y.S.3d 222 ; Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc., 116 A.D.3d 899, 983 N.Y.S.2d 866 ; Frederic v. Israel, 104 A.D.3d 909, 960 N.Y.S.2d 918 ; Parrotta v. Wolgin, 245 A.D.2d 872, 666 N.Y.S.2d 341 ; Pendergrast v. St. Mary's Hosp., 156 A.D.2d 436, 437–438, 548 N.Y.S.2d 711 ).
The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and, in effect, dismissed this proceeding without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 304, 311[a][2] ; see also Matter of Star Boxing, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 17 A.D.3d 372, 792 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; Matter of Brown v. Scully, 135 A.D.2d 713, 522 N.Y.S.2d 614 ).
RIVERA, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.