—[*1] James P. Murphy, Pearl River, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Larry A. Sonnenshein and Diana Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding, inter alia, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75-b to compel the City of New York to reinstate the petitioner to his position as a New York City Police Officer, the petitioner appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Weiner, J.), dated October 21, 2011, and (2) an order of the same court (Berliner, J.), entered April 4, 2012, which, upon the decision, denied his motion to resubmit his claim pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75-b and granted the respondent's cross motion to prohibit him from filing any further motions or papers without prior written permission of the Supreme Court.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's motion to resubmit his whistleblower claim pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75-b. The petitioner's Civil Service Law § 75-b claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the claim was litigated in a prior CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by the court-appointed guardian of the petitioner's property. That proceeding was resolved by a so-ordered stipulation in which the guardian agreed to discontinue the proceeding with prejudice. Pursuant to the stipulation, the petitioner's resignation from the police department was annulled, and he was permitted to retire on an ordinary disability pension (see Matter of James M. v City of N.Y. Police Dept., 69 AD3d 634 [2010]; Murphy v City of New York, 270 AD2d 209 [2000]).

Moreover, in light of the petitioner's litigation history, the respondent's cross motion to prohibit the petitioner from filing any further motions or other papers without prior written permission of the Supreme Court was properly granted (see Matter of Barash v Northern Trust Corp., 54 AD3d 407 [2008]; Matter of Robert v O'Meara, 28 AD3d 567, 568 [2006]). Balkin, J.P., Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.