The claims plaintiff seeks to pursue in this state court action were, or could have been, raised and decided, in the now concluded federal court action premised on the same underlying transactions. Accordingly, since plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his state claims in the federal action and the claims asserted in the federal action, including those dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, were adjudicated on the merits, defendants' motion to dismiss this action on res judicata grounds was properly granted ( see Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185, 194; Marinelli Assocs. v. Helmsley-Noyes Co., 265 A.D.2d 1; Giacomazzo v. Moreno, 94 A.D.2d 369, lv denied 60 N.Y.2d 558; cf., Browning Ave. Realty Corp. v. Rubin, 207 A.D.2d 263, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 804).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.