People v. Fagan
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- People v. Gates (Mich. 1990)
- Lucido v. Superior Court (Cal. 1990)
- State v. Brunet (Vt. 2002)
- Byrd v. People (Colo. 2002)
- People v. Roselle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
- State v. McDowell (Conn. 1997)
- Commonwealth v. Cosgrove (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)
- People v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Chavez v. McKinna (10th Cir. 2002)
- People v. Hilton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- People v. Jacobs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- United States v. McMillian (D.C. 2006)
- People v. Wouk (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)
- People v. Wouk (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)
- People v. Hilton (New York Supreme Court 1999)
- People v. Trucchio (New York Supreme Court 1993)
- People v. Nezaj (New York Supreme Court 1988)
- Trump v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2024)
- People v. Simmons (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Porter (Valerie) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. McEachin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Lowe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Somerville (New York Supreme Court 2004)
- People v. Somerville (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2004)
- People v. Hilton (N.Y. 2000)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.