To the extent that the petition asserted claims for relief obtainable pursuant to CPLR article 78, it was properly dismissed as time-barred. Petitioner's request for reconsideration of the administrative determination terminating his employment did not extend the applicable four-month limitation period ( Matter of De Milio v. Borghard, 55 N.Y.2d 216, 220; Matter of Bonar v. Shaffer, 140 A.D.2d 153, 156, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 702). Nor did the meeting held in December 1997, eight months after petitioner's termination, constitute the sort of "fresh, complete and unlimited examination into the merits" ( Matter of Camperlengo v. State Liq. Auth., 16 A.D.2d 342, 344) as would suffice to revive the Statute of Limitations ( see, Matter of Davis v. Kingsbury, 30 A.D.2d 944, 945, affd 27 N.Y.2d 567).

Petitioner's claim for a declaratory judgment was also properly dismissed as barred by the four-month limitation period since the underlying dispute — whether an employee who is terminated for failing to maintain a city residence is entitled to the procedural protections of the Civil Service Law — may be resolved through an article 78 proceeding ( see, Solnick v. Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224).

However, since, as the parties agree, petitioner's remaining claim, for violation of his civil rights ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983), is not properly disposed of as an incident ( see, CPLR 7806) of his article 78 claims, and the claim is not precluded by the existence of a State statutory remedy for the asserted wrong ( see, 423 S. Salina St. v. City of Syracuse, 68 N.Y.2d 474, 487, cert denied and appeal dismissed 481 U.S. 1008), the claim should not have been dismissed, but should have been permitted, albeit in the form of a plenary action, and we modify accordingly ( see, CPLR 103 [c]; People ex rel. Brown v. New York State Div. of Parole, 70 N.Y.2d 391, 398).

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.