With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". insignificance of the charge, the defendant had no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial as he would have in a true criminal prosecution, or even in the subsequently initiated civil action for damages. Nor could he reasonably expect or be expected to defend with the same vigor. The brisk, often informal, way in which these matters must be tried, as well as the relative insignificance of the outcome, afford the party neither opportunity nor incentive to litigate thoroughly or as thoroughly as she might if more were at stake. Gilberg v. Barbieri, 53 N.Y.2d 285, 293, 441 N.Y.S.2d 49, 423 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y.1981) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs traffic court adjudication has no preclusive effect here. But see Zanghi v. Village of Old Brookville, 752 F.2d 42, 46-47 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Even if New York traffic court adjudications

A: holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
B: holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined
C: holding without discussion of gilberg that res judicata applies to facts determined in new york traffic court proceeding
D: holding that new york law applies to this matter
C.