Moreover, we note that plaintiff commenced the 2013 action in an apparent attempt to overcome her failure to amend her complaint in the 2011 action as directed in a September 11, 2012 order in that action. Supreme Court appropriately dismissed the 2013 action on this ground as well ( see Velez v. Union Sanitorium Assn., 106 A.D.2d 280, 281, 482 N.Y.S.2d 289 [1st Dept.1984],affd.64 N.Y.2d 1119, 490 N.Y.S.2d 170, 479 N.E.2d 806 [1985] ).

Plaintiff agreed to pay the outstanding principal balance of the loans, and there is no basis for plaintiff's contention that she should be excused from her contractual repayment obligation (see N. Fork Bank Trust Co. v. Holbrook, 89 A.D.2d 599, 600). Dismissal of the declaratory judgment action was also warranted by the circumstance that it was duplicative of plaintiff's embezzlement action, the two actions involving substantially the same parties, issues and underlying facts (see CPLR 3211[a][4];Velez v. Union Sanitorium Assn., Inc., 106 A.D.2d 280, 281, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1119). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

. See also Velez v Union Sanitorium Assn., Inc., 64 NY2d 1119 (1985) (affirming dismissal of subsequent action where defendant in a prior action answered that complaint and stated that its name as sued in that action was the proper entity allegedly responsible for the injuries, and where plaintiff accepted the answer without objection).