Kinnaman v. Doran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kinnaman v. Doran

278 A.D.2d 923, 718 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13454

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 923 (Kinnaman v. Doran) 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

Kinnaman v. Doran, 278 A.D.2d 923, 718 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit his trial [924]*924upon the charges in Ontario County indictment No. 99-10-213 on the ground that the prosecution of those charges is barred by the constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy (see, US Const 5th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 40.20). The trial of that indictment has been held and the proceeding therefore must be dismissed. “Prohibition is not now warranted where the trial sought to be prohibited has been held and where the issues tendered may be raised on the direct appeal following such trial” (Matter of O’Neill v Beisheim, 39 NY2d 924, 925). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes and Scudder, JJ.

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

Proceeding unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this original proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit his trial [924]*924upon the charges in Ontario County indictment No. 99-10-213 on the ground that the prosecution of those charges is barred by the constitutional and statutory protections against double jeopardy (see, US Const 5th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 40.20). The trial of that indictment has been held and the proceeding therefore must be dismissed. “Prohibition is not now warranted where the trial sought to be prohibited has been held and where the issues tendered may be raised on the direct appeal following such trial” (Matter of O’Neill v Beisheim, 39 NY2d 924, 925). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 923, 718 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinnaman-v-doran-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack