In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner challenges the determination to revoke his parole claiming that the preliminary and final revocation hearings were not conducted in a timely manner. In a prior proceeding commenced pursuant to CPLR article 70, petitioner unsuccessfully argued this same timeliness issue (People ex rel. McAllister v Leonardo, 182 A.D.2d 1031). As petitioner has already had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the timeliness issue in the habeas corpus proceeding, he is precluded from relitigating the same issue in this proceeding (see, Kaufman v Lilly Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 455). Because petitioner's claim was finally resolved against him and he has failed to meet his burden of showing that he did not have a fair opportunity to litigate the issues, any new claims arising out of the same transaction which he is attempting to raise for the first time in this proceeding are also barred (see, Matter of Reilly v Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 27-28; Matter of La Ruffa v Smith, 148 A.D.2d 885, 886-887, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 608).
Weiss, P.J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.