Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered May 5, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for leave to renew her motion to dismiss the claim for consequential damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The new facts offered by defendant on her renewal motion would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). The mere fact that the plaintiff in a related federal action chose not to depose defendant does not support defendant’s theory that her disclosure of attorney-client communications will not play a role in the determination of that action or a state action brought by the same plaintiff. Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.