Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion:Papers NumberedDefendant’s Notice of Motion to Dismiss with Accompanying Affidavits and Exhibits 1Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint 2Plaintiff’s Affirmation in Opposition with Accompanying Affidavits and Exhibits 3Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 4Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 5Sur-Reply Affirmation 6AMENDED DECISION/ORDER
*1 This case addresses the labyrinth of which preclusion doctrines apply when a federal district court rules upon both a federal cause of action and a state cause of action and then issues an order dismissing the state cause of action without prejudice. The district court ruled that: 1) a plaintiff need not file a notice of claim when suing a principal employed by the NYC Department of Education (“DOE”) for allegedly violating the State and City Human Rights Laws (“NYSHRL” and “City HRL”), since the principal is not an officer of the DOE, and 2) denied the defendants motion to dismiss the State and City HRL claims against the principal for retaliating against plaintiff in response to her opposing the principal’s campaign of age discrimination. As will be set forth below, the doctrines of collateral estoppel and law of the case apply to most of the federal court’s rulings.Background FactsPlaintiff Latyana Collins (“plaintiff” or “Collins”) was first hired by the DOE as a teacher in 2004 and received tenure in 2007. She then obtained a master’s degree and subsequently took an examination for and obtained a license as an Assistant Principal (“AP”). After serving as a Citywide Master Teacher in Special Education for a year, plaintiff was promoted to the title of AP for District 79 — “Alternate Schools & Programs” — and was assigned to be one of three assistant principals in the Restart Academy. As a newly appointed AP, plaintiff had to serve a five year probationary period. At all relevant times, the principal of Restart Program was defendant Joan Indart-Etienne (“defendant” or “Etienne” or “principal”). Plaintiff’s primary physical placement was at the Euphrasian Residence where her duties included ensuring students were receiving instruction, supervising and aiding the staff and observing and evaluating teacher performance.
