Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Benson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner concedes that this proceeding was brought more than four months after the disciplinary determination sought to be reviewed became final (see, CPLR 217). He nonetheless urges that this proceeding is timely under CPLR 205 (a) because he commenced it within six months of the dismissal of a prior proceeding for review of the same determination. However, that prior proceeding was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (see, e.g., Matter of Kelly v Scully, 152 A.D.2d 698; Matter of Dello v Selsky, 135 A.D.2d 994). Since no proceeding was timely commenced within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a), the Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant proceeding as time-barred (see, Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp., 61 N.Y.2d 283; Matter of RECYCLE v Lacatena, 163 A.D.2d 693). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Eiber, JJ., concur.