Cavaliere v. Judges of the Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cavaliere v. Judges of the Supreme Court

157 A.D.2d 722, 549 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 503

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 722 (Cavaliere v. Judges of the Supreme Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cavaliere v. Judges of the Supreme Court, 157 A.D.2d 722, 549 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the retrial of the petitioner on Kings County indictment No. 3935/88, on the ground that a retrial of the subject indictment would subject him to double jeopardy.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements.

In view of the numerous applications by the defense counsel for a mistrial, his statements that he was standing on the record of those motions, and his failure to object to the declaration of a mistrial, we infer from the totality of circumstances an acquiescence on his part to the declaration of a mistrial (see, People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383; People v Young, 137 AD2d 777). Absent any evidence of bad faith or an intent by the prosecution to provoke a mistrial motion, retrial of the indictment is not barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the retrial of the petitioner on Kings County indictment No. 3935/88, on the ground that a retrial of the subject indictment would subject him to double jeopardy.

Adjudged that the petition is denied, without costs or disbursements.

In view of the numerous applications by the defense counsel for a mistrial, his statements that he was standing on the record of those motions, and his failure to object to the declaration of a mistrial, we infer from the totality of circumstances an acquiescence on his part to the declaration of a mistrial (see, People v Ferguson, 67 NY2d 383; People v Young, 137 AD2d 777). Absent any evidence of bad faith or an intent by the prosecution to provoke a mistrial motion, retrial of the indictment is not barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. Lawrence, J. P., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 722, 549 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavaliere-v-judges-of-the-supreme-court-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack