Pinkard v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pinkard v. New York City Dept. of Educ.

2019 NY Slip Op 204

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 2019

Docket8057 101971/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 204 (Pinkard v. New York City Dept. of Educ.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pinkard v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2019 NY Slip Op 204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Pinkard v New York City Dept. of Educ. (2019 NY Slip Op 00204)

Pinkard v New York City Dept. of Educ.

2019 NY Slip Op 00204

Decided on January 10, 2019

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on January 10, 2019
Friedman, J.P., Gische, Oing, Singh, Moulton, JJ.

8057 101971/15

[*1]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.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered August 15, 2017, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff's motion for renewal with respect to an earlier order dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, and the appeal is otherwise dismissed, without costs, as taken from an nonappealable paper.

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 AD2d 190, 209-210 [1st Dept 1987], lv dismissed 71 NY2d 994 [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.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 10, 2019

CLERK

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI