Opinion
September 29, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P. J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER AND LAWTON, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a bench trial of five counts each of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). Supreme Court properly rejected defendant's contention that the court's decision in a prior Huntley hearing suppressing defendant's written statement had collateral estoppel effect on the issues raised in a subsequent Huntley hearing with respect to defendant's oral statements to a detective from a different law enforcement agency. In order for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply in a criminal case, there must be "identity of parties; identity of issues; a final and valid prior judgment; and a full and fair opportunity to litigate the prior determination" ( People v. Aguilera, 82 N.Y.2d 23, 29-30). Here, the issues raised at the second Huntley hearing were not identical to those raised at the initial Huntley hearing, nor were they litigated at the initial hearing.
Defendant has failed to preserve for our review his contentions that he was denied a fair trial because the court was biased and assumed the role of prosecutor ( see, People v. Galloza, 270 A.D.2d 69) and that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial ( see, People v. Weeks, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided May 10, 2000]; People v. Davis, 263 A.D.2d 963, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1017), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]). We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.