Opinion
July 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Torraca J.).
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that respondent's determination to revoke his pa- role should be annulled because it is not supported by substantial evidence, was influenced by Hearing Officer bias and resulted in an excessive penalty. The record reveals that petitioner unsuccessfully advanced nearly identical arguments in two prior proceedings commenced pursuant to CPLR article 70. Because petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity in the context of those proceedings to litigate the issues, he is barred from relitigating them in this proceeding ( see, Matter of McAllister v. Division of Parole, 186 A.D.2d 326). To the extent that some of petitioner's claims may differ from those previously raised, they are nevertheless precluded because they arise out of the same transaction which was finally resolved against petitioner in the CPLR article 70 proceeding ( see, Matter of La Ruffa v. Smith, 148 A.D.2d 885, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 608).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.