Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding as against the individual respondents for untimeliness. The petitioner concedes that they were not served within the four-month limitation period of CPLR 217 (see generally, D.B.C.G., Inc. v Town of Ramapo, 97 A.D.2d 533; Matter of Trinity Syndicate Corp. v Department of Fin., 93 A.D.2d 122, 123), and the circumstances of this case do not give rise to the application of any toll of the limitations period (see generally, Raschel v Rish, 69 N.Y.2d 694; Connell v Hayden, 83 A.D.2d 30). Moreover, the dismissal of the proceeding as against the respondent County of Suffolk was also proper, inasmuch as the petition alleged no wrong doing on the part of the County and sought no relief which the County had the authority to provide (see generally, Matter of Reden v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn., 133 A.D.2d 694). Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.