Opinion
10-07-2016
In the Matter of William E. HAMILTON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Mary ALLEY, James Froio and Board of Education of Jordan–Elbridge Central School District, Respondents–Respondents.
O'Hara, O'Connell & Ciotoli, Fayetteville (Douglas G. O'Hara of Counsel), for petitioner-appellant. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Douglas M. McRae of Counsel), for respondents-respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Donald A. Greenwood, J.), entered June 25, 2015 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75. The order denied petitioner's motion for leave to renew the amended petition.
O'Hara, O'Connell & Ciotoli, Fayetteville (Douglas G. O'Hara of Counsel), for petitioner-appellant.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Syracuse (Douglas M. McRae of Counsel), for respondents-respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 75 proceeding challenging his termination as a tenured administrator of the Jordan–Elbridge Central School District. On a prior appeal, we modified an order denying the amended petition by granting the amended petition in part (Matter of Hamilton v. Alley, 137 A.D.3d 1564, 1565, 26 N.Y.S.3d 892 ). Petitioner now appeals from an order denying his subsequent motion for leave to renew his amended petition. As Supreme Court properly concluded, petitioner failed in support of his motion to offer new facts that were unavailable when the court initially denied the amended petition. “Thus, ... [petitioner's] motion purportedly seeking leave to renew was actually seeking leave to reargue, and no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue” (Hill v. Milan, 89 A.D.3d 1458, 1458, 932 N.Y.S.2d 411 ; see Westrick v. County of Steuben, 309 A.D.2d 1246, 1246–1247, 765 N.Y.S.2d 86 ). We therefore dismiss the appeal.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, and CARNI, JJ., concur.