Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated June 20, 2002 (Dawn M. Jimenez, J.) insofar as the order denied tenant's motion for summary judgment and from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County, dated December 13, 2002 after a nonjury trial (Cyril K. Bedford, J.) awarding possession to landlord in a holdover summary proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Final judgment dated December 13, 2002 (Cyril K. Bedford, J.) reversed, with $30 costs, and final judgment of possession granted in favor of tenant dismissing the holdover petition.

Appeal from order dated June 20, 2002 (Dawn M. Jimenez, J.) dismissed, without [*2]costs, as subsumed in the judgment.

Landlord premised a previous holdover proceeding upon tenant's unlawful subletting to, inter alia, one Margaret Ross, alleging that the premises were being used as a "profit making enterprise in direct violation of the Rent Stabilization Code". That proceeding was settled by written stipulation of settlement expressly discontinuing the holdover "with prejudice" upon termination of the sublet, which concededly occurred. Within three months, landlord commenced a second holdover based upon "profiteering" in connection with the overcharging of unapproved subtenants. As developed in the record, the proceeding was premised upon the sublet to the same Margaret Ross, who had been previously identified in the first holdover and who had vacated pursuant to the terms of the stipulation.

In determining tenant's motion for summary judgment, Civil Court (Dawn M. Jimenez, J.) erred in failing to give preclusive effect to the stipulated discontinuance with prejudice (see, Schwartzreich v E.P.C Carting Co., Inc., 246 AD2d 439; Troy v Goord, 300 AD2d 1086). Under the doctrine of res judicata, " ... a new claim constitutes the same cause of action as the formerly litigated claim if they both arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, even if the new claim is based upon a different legal theory or seeks a different remedy" (Troy v Goord, supra, at 1087). Here, the same foundation facts form the basis for both proceedings. Landlord should not be permitted to split off a claim for "profiteering" from the generic unlawful sublet claim it previously agreed to discontinue. Strict enforcement of stipulations of settlement serves the interest of efficient dispute resolution and ensures finality in the litigation process (see, Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230). Landlord's piecemeal approach to litigation is antithetical to these desired goals. "The res judicata doctrine would be meaningless if a party could split its cause of action merely to ensure that each alternate theory of recovery received sufficient individualized attention" (Schwartzreich v E.P.C. Carting Co., Inc., 246 AD2d 439, 441).

The cross-motion to vacate the stipulation was not addressed below on the ground that it was required to be brought before the judge who so-ordered the settlement. We have reviewed the record and conclude that none of the requisite grounds for vacatur have been set forth (see, Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 150). There is no showing that the settlement agreement was the product of fraud (see, Broadway Famous Party Rental v Cipriani 42nd Street, LLC, 289 AD2d 45).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.