Casey, J.
The many and varied attempts of petitioner to challenge his suspension from a tenured teaching position with respondent in 1975 are set forth in his prior appeal to this court (Matter of McFerran v. Board of Educ., 58 A.D.2d 917, affd 45 N.Y.2d 729, cert denied 440 U.S. 923). Previously, we modified Special Term's judgment to provide that dismissal of the petition was with prejudice.
In this proceeding, which was likewise dismissed at Special Term, petitioner seeks review of what he characterizes as his "new claim". This new claim contends that Education Law § 2508 (5) is inapplicable to tenured teachers and, therefore, petitioner's initial suspension was void ab initio, entitling him to immediate reinstatement.
Under this State's transactional analysis approach to the doctrine of res judicata, the relevant inquiry is not whether a specific theory was asserted in prior litigation, but whether such theory could have been raised in the prior litigation arising out of a single transaction (Smith v. Russell Sage Coll., 54 N.Y.2d 185; O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353; Hyman v. Hillelson, 79 A.D.2d 725, affd 55 N.Y.2d 624). Inasmuch as petitioner's argument was viable at the time of his prior proceeding, it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata regardless of whether he actually raised it. Accordingly, the judgment of Special Term should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. Main, J.P., Casey, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.