The transactions upon which this action is premised were the subject of prior claims brought by and concluded against plaintiff ( see Richbell Info. Servs. v. Jupiter Partners, 309 AD2d 288 [2003]). Accordingly, the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata ( O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357). We note in this connection that claims can arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions "even if there are variations in the facts alleged, or different relief is sought" ( Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 NY2d 185, 192) and even when "`several legal theories depend on different shadings of the facts, or would emphasize different elements of the facts, or would call for different measures of liability or different kinds of relief'" ( id., quoting Restatement [Second] of Judgments [Tent Draft No. 5] § 61, Comment c).
Because the issues raised in this action were also actually and necessarily decided in the earlier case after plaintiff was afforded a full and fair opportunity for their litigation, dismissal was also warranted on the grounds of collateral estoppel ( see Kaufman v. Eli Lilly Co., 65 NY2d 449, 455).