Case Name: In the Matter of Craig Gottlieb, Appellant, v. City of New York et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 126 A.D.3d 903
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Craig Gottlieb, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
Judges: Mastro, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Craig Gottlieb, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.
[2 NYS3d 923]

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 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.