Opinion
July 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irving S. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Summary judgment was granted to the defendant in a prior action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for fraud and for an accounting. In that action, the court also denied the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to replead in order to replace those two causes of action with causes of action sounding in breach of contract and unfair competition. Upon the plaintiff's appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment (see, Hypertronics, Inc. v Digital Equip. Corp., 159 A.D.2d 607). The plaintiff then brought the instant action to recover damages for breach of contract and unfair competition.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the court properly dismissed the present action. Notwithstanding the differences in legal theories it now alleges and the remedies it seeks, the claims in the present action arise out of the same transactions as those alleged in the complaint in the prior action. Thus, under the transactional analysis approach, the instant action is barred on the ground of res judicata (see, O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357; Reape v. New York News, 163 A.D.2d 287). Sullivan, J.P., Eiber, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.