The record amply supports the hearing court's credibility determinations and its finding that defendant, arriving at an illegal gambling house in Chinatown just after the execution of a search warrant had begun, lacked standing to controvert that warrant (see, e.g., People v Rivera, 121 A.D.2d 166, affd 68 N.Y.2d 786). Additionally, as the Criminal Court hearing (Ira Globerman, J.) that ultimately determined the illegality of the search warrant utilized by the police to enter the premises involved different issues and parties, and as defendant's specific claim was not brought before that court, the collateral estoppel doctrine may not properly be invoked by defendant (see, e.g., People v McGriff, 130 A.D.2d 141).
This Court rejects defendant's alternative argument that he was unlawfully stopped by a police officer stationed at the door of the illegal gambling house while other officers executed the search warrant inside the premises. The arresting officer's testimony, fully credited by the hearing court, was that as security officer stationed at the door of the gambling house, he attempted to prevent defendant from entering the premises. In the circumstances, a stop and inquiry were authorized (People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210). When defendant ignored the officer's questioning as to his purpose at the premises, and then entered and shouted in Chinese at the occupants, the officer's knowledge, gained through experience, that guns usually accompany illegal gambling house operations, justified the officer's frisk of defendant (People v De Bour, supra). Therefore, the hearing court's application of traditional search and seizure principles to deny defendant's suppression motion is amply supported by the record (People v Prochilo, 41 N.Y.2d 759).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.