Opinion
8057 Index 101971/15
01-10-2019
Eugenia PINKARD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Eugenia Pinkard, appellant pro se. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo DiSilvio of counsel), for New York City Department of Education, respondent. Lichten & Bright, P.C., New York (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for United Federation of Teachers and NYSUT, respondents.
Eugenia Pinkard, appellant pro se.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Lorenzo DiSilvio of counsel), for New York City Department of Education, respondent.
Lichten & Bright, P.C., New York (Stuart Lichten of counsel), for United Federation of Teachers and NYSUT, respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.
The court properly denied plaintiff's motion for renewal since she presented the same facts and exhibits as she did in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, albeit in support of a different theory (see generally Matter of Weinberg , 132 A.D.2d 190, 209–210, 522 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1st Dept. 1987], lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994, 529 N.Y.S.2d 277, 524 N.E.2d 879 [1988] ; CPLR 2221[e] ). Furthermore, the instant action is a rehash of plaintiff's prior federal actions, which were dismissed, and from which she did not appeal.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.