Crowley v. Hanf

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crowley v. Hanf

26 A.D.2d 934, 274 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125

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

DecidedNovember 7, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 934 (Crowley v. Hanf) 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

Crowley v. Hanf, 26 A.D.2d 934, 274 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to prohibit a Justice of the Peace from taking further action in the prosecution of a traffic offense, on the ground of double jeopardy, the Justice of the Peace appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 5, 1965, which pro[935]*935hibited such further action by appellant and granted petitioner costs against appellant. Judgment reversed, on the' law, and petition dismissed, without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. We are of the opinion that the discontinuance of the trial was brought about through petitioner’s insistence upon a mode of trial that could not be adhered to at the time in question. He therefore waived his right to a claim of double jeopardy and is estopped from raising the issue at a continuation of the prosecution for the traffic offense (22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 261). We are of the further opinion that costs should not have been allowed against the public officer (cf. Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to prohibit a Justice of the Peace from taking further action in the prosecution of a traffic offense, on the ground of double jeopardy, the Justice of the Peace appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 5, 1965, which pro[935]*935hibited such further action by appellant and granted petitioner costs against appellant. Judgment reversed, on the' law, and petition dismissed, without costs. No questions of fact have been considered. We are of the opinion that the discontinuance of the trial was brought about through petitioner’s insistence upon a mode of trial that could not be adhered to at the time in question. He therefore waived his right to a claim of double jeopardy and is estopped from raising the issue at a continuation of the prosecution for the traffic offense (22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 261). We are of the further opinion that costs should not have been allowed against the public officer (cf. Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A D 2d 373, affd. 15 N Y 2d 831). Christ, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 934, 274 N.Y.S.2d 439, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crowley-v-hanf-nyappdiv-1966.