In this action to recover damages for alleged unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of gender and national origin in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law, the Plaintiff appealed:
(1) An order of the Supreme Court dated February 7, 2024, which granted Defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint; and
(2) An order of the same court dated July 29, 2024, which denied that branch of the Plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue his opposition to the Defendants' prior motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint.*
The Appellate Division:
1. Dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal from so much of the order dated July 29, 2024, as denied that branch of the Plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue, explaining that no appeal lies from an order denying re-argument;
2. Affirmed the Supreme Court's order dated February 7, 2024; and
3. Awarded one bill of costs to the Defendants.
Plaintiff had commenced this action against two employees of the Department of Education of the City of New York [DOE] in their individual and official capacities in June 2023, seeking to recover damages for employment discrimination alleging violations of the United States and New York State Constitutions, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and 42 USC §§1981, 1983, and 1985. Plaintiff had alleged that he was discriminated against by the Defendants during his employment with the DOE based on his "gender as male, and national origin as someone born in Haiti."
Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a), Defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the causes of action asserted against them by the Plaintiff in their official capacities was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
The Defendants argued that in November 2022, Plaintiff had commenced a substantially similar action asserting causes of action identical to those asserted in the instant action against the Defendants' employer, DOE, as well as against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York. Supreme Court had granted DOE's motion in the prior action to dismiss the complaint on the basis of the Plaintiff's default and directed dismissal of the complaint.
The Appellate Division, noting that "Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, a disposition on the merits bars litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a cause of action that either was raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding". The Court noted that "the fact that causes of action may be stated separately, invoke different legal theories, or seek different relief will not permit relitigation of claims", citing Bayer v City of New York, 115 AD3d 897.
Concluding that Supreme Court had properly granted those branches of the Defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action insofar as asserted against them in their official capacities, the Appellate Division opined that those causes of action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata as the Defendants "in their official capacities were in privity with their employer [DOE], and the default judgment in the prior action was a final judgment on the merits."
In the words of the Appellate Division:
1. "Supreme Court properly, in effect, denied that branch of the Plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the February 2024 order; and
2. "Supreme Court also properly, in effect, denied that branch of the Plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend the complaint, as there was no complaint before the court to amend at the time the [Plaintiff] moved for such relief."
* Plaintiff's motions pursuant to CPLR 2221(a) and 5015(a)(1) sought to vacate the order dated February 7, 2024, and pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to replead or amend the complaint.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.