| People v Williams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01946 [93 AD3d 1212] |
| March 16, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SherrellWilliams, Appellant. |
—[*1] R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (James B. Ritts of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, A.J.), renderedNovember 21, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25), defendantcontends that Ontario County Court erred in concluding that he was collaterally estopped fromrelitigating a witness's identification of him from a photo array that was the subject of aWade hearing held in Monroe County Court. We reject that contention. The doctrine ofcollateral estoppel "prevents a party from relitigating an issue decided against [him or her] in aprior proceeding" (People v Aguilera, 82 NY2d 23, 29 [1993]), and it applies where thereis identity of parties and issues, a final and valid prior judgment and a full and fair opportunity tolitigate the prior determination (see id. at 29-30). The doctrine of collateral estoppelapplies in both criminal and civil cases (see generally id. at 29; People v Plevy,52 NY2d 58, 64-65 [1980]).
Here, the parties stipulated to the fact that Monroe County Court refused to suppress a photoidentification following a Wade hearing in the case against him in that county, and it isundisputed that the parties involved in that determination are identical to the parties involvedhere. The People established identity of the issue through a police witness who testified that thephoto array in question at the Monroe County Court Wade hearing was the only photoarray ever shown to the witness and was the same photo array challenged by defendant in OntarioCounty Court. We conclude that defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issuewith respect to suppression of the identification before Monroe County Court (see generallyPeople v Paccione, 290 AD2d 567, 568 [2002]). Present—Centra, J.P., Carni, Lindley,Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.