Opinion
October 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Supreme Court improperly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar it from challenging the Zoning Board's granting of a parking variance. It is well settled that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is predicated on two requirements. First, the identical issue necessarily must have been decided in the prior action and be decisive of the present action, and second, the party to be precluded from relitigating the issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination (see, Matter of City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Racing Corp., 171 A.D.2d 663; see also, Couri v. Westchester Country Club, 186 A.D.2d 715). The record indicates that the petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue in a prior proceeding but failed to do so. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not err by according collateral estoppel effect to the determination (see, Matter of City of Yonkers v. Yonkers Racing Corp., supra).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J.P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.