Cangro v Reitano

Cangro v Reitano 2012 NY Slip Op 00911 Decided on February 9, 2012 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 February 9, 2012
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Román, JJ.
6775 107912/10

[*1]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 AD3d 427, 429 [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 AD2d 233 [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 AD3d 358, 359 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and
find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 9, 2012

CLERK