MATTER OF DeFILIPPO v. Rooney

896 N.E.2d 86, 11 N.Y.3d 775
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 16, 2008·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, and the certified question not answered on the ground that it is unnecessary.

The Appellate Division correctly concluded that petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was conducted in a deliberate attempt to provoke him to move for a mistrial (see Matter of Gorghan v DeAngelis, 7 NY3d 470 [2006]). The Appellate Division also properly concluded that petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the remedy of prohibition (see Matter of Rush v Mordue, 68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62 [1975]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

*777 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment affirmed, etc.

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

MATTER OF DeFILIPPO v. Rooney, 896 N.E.2d 86, 11 N.Y.3d 775 (N.Y. 2008).

896 N.E.2d 86 (MATTER OF DeFILIPPO v. Rooney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Belton v. Spota
122 A.D.3d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
King v. Weber
75 A.D.3d 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Hambrick v. LaTella
65 A.D.3d 1237 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Stewart
57 A.D.3d 1312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)