Opinion
1423
June 17, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered November 25, 2002, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior order of the same court and Justice granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as barred under the doctrine of res judicata, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
George R. Hinckley, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael J. Berman, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Lerner, Gonzalez, JJ.
Inasmuch as plaintiff's present claims arise from the same transactions that were the subject of her counterclaims in the previously concluded nonpayment proceeding, they are barred under the doctrine of res judicata (see Coleman v. Chaibane Props., Inc., 188 A.D.2d 413, 414, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 803).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.