Matter of Moody v City of New York

2026 NY Slip Op 02272

April 15, 2026

Appellate Division, Second Department

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

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

In the Matter of Aura Moody, appellant,

City of New York, et al., respondents.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Decided on April 15, 2026

2023-03767, (Index No. 722995/22)

Colleen D. Duffy, J.P.

Paul Wooten

Phillip Hom

Elena Goldberg Velazquez, JJ.

Aura Moody, Saint Albans, NY, appellant pro se.

Steven Banks, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Hannah J. Sarokin and Deborah A. Brenner of counsel), for respondents City of New York, New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Community School District 29, Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Dave Chokshi, Ashwin Vasan, Meisha Porter, David Banks, and Beverly Mitchell.

Robert T. Reilly, New York, NY (Ximena Castro of counsel), for respondents United Federation of Teachers and Michael Mulgrew.

[*1]

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent New York City Department of Education dated February 11, 2022, which terminated the petitioner's employment, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.), dated March 13, 2023. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for leave to reargue her opposition to the cross-motion of the respondents United Federation of Teachers and Michael Mulgrew, and the application of the respondents City of New York, New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Community School District 29, Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Dave Chokshi, Ashwin Vasan, Meisha Porter, David Banks, and Beverly Mitchell, to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against each of them, which had been, in effect, granted in an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court entered January 30, 2023.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument.

The petitioner's appeal from so much of the order dated March 13, 2023, as denied that branch of her motion which was for leave to reargue must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Halvatzis v Perrone, 199 AD3d 787, 788; Matter of New S. Ins. Co. v Rosado, 125 AD3d 867, 867).

DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, HOM and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court