IN RE: Application of John QUARANTA

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

IN RE: Application of John QUARANTA, Petitioner-Appellant, For a Judgment, etc., v. Michael P. JACOBSON, etc., et al., Respondents-Respondents.

Decided: May 28, 1998

Before LERNER, P.J., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, TOM and ANDRIAS, JJ. Mercedes Maldonado, for Petitioner-Appellant. Susan Choi-Hausman, for Respondents-Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered August 23, 1996, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Petitioner, as part of his agreement to plead guilty in New Jersey to unlawful possession of a weapon, consented to forfeit his job as a New York City correction officer.   Accordingly, the judgment of conviction subsequently entered upon petitioner's plea ordered him to forfeit his job, and petitioner, in compliance with the plea agreement and judgment, tendered his resignation in a letter addressed to the Department of Correction warden.   Since petitioner's cessation of his employment with the Department of Correction was thus accomplished by voluntary resignation, rather than by administrative determination, petitioner's present challenge to the termination of his employment does not implicate any determination by respondent Department of Correction, and in the absence of such a determination to review, this proceeding was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see, Garcia v. New York City Probation Dept., 208 A.D.2d 475, 617 N.Y.S.2d 724).

 Nor may petitioner avoid the jurisdictional bar by claiming that his resignation was involuntary.   Petitioner is collaterally estopped from advancing such a claim by reason of the circumstance that his conviction was affirmed (State of New Jersey v. Quaranta, No. A-007426-95T4 [N.J. Super.Ct. App.Div., Aug. 12, 1997], cert. denied 152 N.J. 189, 704 A.2d 19) on the ground that he had voluntarily entered into the plea agreement requiring his resignation (see, Meades v. Spinnato, 138 A.D.2d 579, 526 N.Y.S.2d 161).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.