Issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and res judicata are related equitable concepts based on the notion that once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transactions are barred. Manko v. Gabay, 175 AD3d 484 (2d Dept. 2019). As stated by Justice Cardozo in Schuylkill v. Nieberg, 250 NY 304 (1929), a judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one, not only as to matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would impair rights established by the first. The general rule in New York is that estoppel by judgment extends to every material matter within the issues, whether actually litigated or not, provided they are comprehended and involved in the issue expressly stated and decided. Thus whatever is necessarily implied in the former decision is, for the purpose of the estoppel, deemed to have been actually decided. Reich v. Cochran, 151 NY 122 (1896). When the same foundation facts serve as a predicate for each proceeding, differences in legal theory and consequent remedy do not create a separate cause of action. Reilly v. Reid, 45 NY2d 24 (1978). Once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based on different theories or if seeking a different remedy. In re Hunter, 4 NY3d 260 (2005)