Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alonzo Fagan, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1985-11-14
Citations: 66 N.Y.2d 815
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonzo Fagan, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alonzo Fagan, Appellant.
Argued October 17, 1985;
decided November 14, 1985
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender (Brian Shiffrin of counsel), for appellant.
Howard R. Relin, District Attorney (Melvin Bressler and Michael J. Nelson of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The courts below properly found that the dismissal, at the conclusion of a final parole revocation hearing of charges lodged against the defendant, did not bar a later prosecution of criminal charges based on the same acts. Collateral estoppel is a flexible doctrine, not to be applied automatically just because its formal prerequisites are met (Gilberg v Barbieri, 53 NY2d 285, 292). Strong policy considerations militate against giving issues determined in prior litigation preclusive effect in a criminal case, and indeed we have never done so (see, People v Plevy, 52 NY2d 58, 65, n 4). The correct determination of guilt or innocence is paramount in criminal cases (People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 345), and the People's incentive to litigate in a felony prosecution would presumably be stronger than in a parole revocation proceeding (cf. Gilberg v Barbieri, supra).
We have examined defendant's other contention and found it to be without merit.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.