From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King v. Carrion

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 12, 2015
128 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

05-12-2015

In re Donicia KING, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Gladys CARRION, etc., et al., Respondents.

MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York (Sara Baez of counsel), for appellants.


MFY Legal Services, Inc., New York (Sara Baez of counsel), for appellants.

Opinion Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about September 23, 2014, which declined to exercise jurisdiction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable ex parte order, such appeal deemed an application pursuant to CPLR 5704(a) to review the order, and the application denied.

Petitioner sought to commence an article 78 proceeding against respondents through the means of an order to show cause, which Supreme Court refused to sign. The court also issued an order declining to exercise jurisdiction. No appeal as of right lies from an ex parte order or from the refusal to sign an ex parte order to show cause (CPLR 5701[a][2] ). However, review may be obtained by way of an application pursuant to CPLR 5704(a).

Upon review of the record, we find that Supreme Court properly declined to sign the order to show cause, as petitioner failed to exhaust her administrative remedies (see Matter of King v. Gregorie, 90 A.D.2d 922, 457 N.Y.S.2d 938 [3d Dept.1982], lv. dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 822, 459 N.Y.S.2d 269, 445 N.E.2d 653 [1983] ). Petitioner never sought administrative review of respondents' determination that she was not an appropriate person to be certified or approved as a foster parent for her grandchildren (see 18 NYCRR 443.2 [b][9], [10] ). Nor did petitioner show that administrative review of the determination would be futile, or that pursuing such review would cause her irreparable injury (see Matter of Community Related Servs., Inc. [CRS] v. Novello, 41 A.D.3d 323, 323, 838 N.Y.S.2d 552 [1st Dept.2007] ). Accordingly, petitioner could not have prevailed in an article 78 proceeding (see Matter of King, 90 A.D.2d at 923, 457 N.Y.S.2d 938 ).

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, DeGRASSE, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

King v. Carrion

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 12, 2015
128 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

King v. Carrion

Case Details

Full title:In re Donicia KING, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Gladys CARRION, etc., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 12, 2015

Citations

128 A.D.3d 461 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
7 N.Y.S.3d 894
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 4035

Citing Cases

Sitbon-Robson v. Robson

Because the parties' stipulation addressed the pricing and sale of the marital residence and the parties did…

N. Manhattan Equities, LLC v. Civil Court of N.Y.

Even assuming that the denial of petitioner's application was not an order appealable as of right (…