The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS. The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff, Dennis DaCosta, commenced this action against his former employer, defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) (collectively, defendants or the City) to recover damages stemming from an alleged retaliatory separation of employment related to plaintiff’s forced retirement on February 28, 2019 and the DOB’s interference with plaintiff’s prospective employment with the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC).1 In motion sequence 001, plaintiff now moves to amend the notice of claim to add claims for defamation and tortious interference stemming from the DOB’s alleged May 2019 retaliatory conduct, namely, that the DOB unjustly interfered with plaintiff’s prospective employment with HHC, causing the HHC to withdraw their offer of employment to plaintiff. In motion sequence 002, defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Both motions are opposed and consolidated for joint disposition. For the forgoing reasons below, and after oral argument, wherein counsel for plaintiff conceded that the proposed tortious interference claim is not viable, plaintiff’s motion is denied, and defendants’ motion is granted. BACKGROUND Plaintiff was employed as the Executive Director of the Office of Internal Affairs and Discipline at the DOB from September 4, 2018 until February 28, 2019 (NYSCEF # 17, complaint at 11). Plaintiff alleges he was forced to resign from his position in retaliation for reporting a complaint concerning his supervisors to the City’s Department of Investigations (DOI) (id. at 7). Specifically, the complaint alleges that after plaintiff notified the DOI of a potential conflict of interest involving his supervisors, plaintiff’s supervisor, Alexandra Fisher (Fisher) “[r]efused to interact with him, generally sidelined him, progressively stripped him of responsibilities, and was ultimately responsible for his termination from employment, on or about February 28, 2019″ (id. at
11, 77-86). Plaintiff further alleges that Fisher and the DOC continued to retaliate against plaintiff after he left the DOB, including “[m]andat[ing] that [plaintiff's] former IAD coworkers not to have any contact with him,” withholding “promised networking assistance and favorable references at the time of the termination of his employment,” and “blacklisting” plaintiff, in order to “negatively impact his ability to secure employment with a City employer” (id. at
