On May 18, 1995, the IAS Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's remaining causes of action after this Court denied his motion to file a third amended complaint ( 199 A.D.2d 129), and the IAS Court further denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a proposed amended complaint alleging fraud. Plaintiff appealed from the grant of summary judgment to defendants, but did not appeal from the denial of his motion to serve an amended complaint ( see, 232 A.D.2d 212).
Since the Supreme Court concluded that plaintiff had not stated a cause of action for fraud and denied plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint alleging fraud, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to challenge that ruling on appeal, and as he failed to do so, the disposition of his proposed fraud claim became final ( see, Feigen v. Advance Capital Mgt. Co., 146 A.D.2d 556), barring, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, reassertion of a cause of action for fraud in this new action against the same defendants premised upon the same underlying transactions ( see, Feigen v. Advance Capital Mgt. Co., supra; EFCO Corp. v. U.W. Marx, Inc., 124 F.3d 394, 399-400).
In addition, the IAS Court correctly granted defendants' motion to suppress and for the return of defendants' quality assurance committee records because those records were privileged (Education Law § 6527; Public Health Law § 2805-m; see, Daly v. Genovese, 96 A.D.2d 1027, lv dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 604).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.