Opinion
2012-02-9
Jennifer CANGRO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Gina Marie REITANO, Defendant–Respondent.
Jennifer Cangro, appellant pro se.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered October 4, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Because this action raises the same claims as those raised in a previous action that was dismissed as time-barred, it is foreclosed by res judicata ( see Ginezra Assoc. LLC v. Ifantopoulos, 70 A.D.3d 427, 429, 895 N.Y.S.2d 355 [2010]; CPLR 3211[a][5] ). In any event, the complaint states no causes of action upon which relief may be granted, as it merely sets forth bare legal conclusions ( see Caniglia v. Chicago Tribune–N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 A.D.2d 233, 612 N.Y.S.2d 146 [1994]; CPLR 3211[a][7] ). Moreover, even considering the merits of the defamation claims, the alleged defamatory statements were privileged as they were made in the course of court proceedings ( see Mintz & Gold, LLP v. Zimmerman, 56 A.D.3d 358, 359, 869 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2008] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.