Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Prior to bringing the arbitration claim which is the subject of this proceeding, the appellants brought an unsuccessful arbitration claim based on the same securities transaction and seeking the same relief against the petitioner Fidelity Brokerage Services, Inc. The Supreme Court properly concluded that the doctrine of res judicata precluded the appellants from bringing a second arbitration based on the same transaction, despite the fact that the arbitration award was never confirmed ( see, Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Bonilla, 219 A.D.2d 708; County of Rockland v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 129 A.D.2d 606; Hilowitz v. Hilowitz, 85 A.D.2d 621). Contrary to the appellants' contentions, neither the inclusion of additional theories of recovery nor the naming of the two individuals who handled the appellants' account as additional parties to the second arbitration defeat the preclusive effect of the arbitration award ( O'Brien v. City of Syracuse, 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357; Ouziel v. Coyle, 165 A.D.2d 868; Slavin v. Fischer, 160 A.D.2d 934; see also, Koch v Consolidated Edison Co., 62 N.Y.2d 548; Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., 1 N.Y.2d 116).
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.