Opinion
April 23, 1998
Appeal from the Court of Claims (Louis Benza, J.).
There is no merit to claimant's argument that Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction over his earlier action that also sought damages for breach of contract, since the demand for damages in that action was dependent upon and incidental to the resolution of an underlying claim for declaratory relief ( see, Shields v. Katz, 143 A.D.2d 743, 745). Once Supreme Court's jurisdiction is accepted, and as the contract on which claimant sued on therein is the same as that sued on herein, the preclusive effect of Supreme Court's judgment is clear.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.