Matter of Gottlieb v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Gottlieb v. City of New York

126 A.D.3d 903, 2 N.Y.S.3d 923

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

Docket2014-01085

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 903 (Matter of Gottlieb v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Matter of Gottlieb v. City of New York, 126 A.D.3d 903, 2 N.Y.S.3d 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

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 7804 (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 adminis *904 trative remedies that precludes review pursuant to CPLR article 78” (Matter of Palm v King, 122 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], citing Matter of Plummer v Klepak, 48 NY2d 486, 489 [1979]; see Matter of Adams v Evans, 92 AD3d 1056 [2012]; see also Matter of Pitts v City of N.Y. Off. of Comptroller, 76 AD3d 633 [2010]).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 7804 (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 adminis *904 trative remedies that precludes review pursuant to CPLR article 78” (Matter of Palm v King, 122 AD3d 1110, 1111 [2014], citing Matter of Plummer v Klepak, 48 NY2d 486, 489 [1979]; see Matter of Adams v Evans, 92 AD3d 1056 [2012]; see also Matter of Pitts v City of N.Y. Off. of Comptroller, 76 AD3d 633 [2010]).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 903, 2 N.Y.S.3d 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gottlieb-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack