Moss v. Vaughn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moss v. Vaughn

164 A.D.2d 958, 560 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825

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

DecidedAugust 28, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 164 A.D.2d 958 (Moss v. Vaughn) 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

Moss v. Vaughn, 164 A.D.2d 958, 560 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit further prosecution of the petitioner under Suffolk County indictment No. 818/89 on the ground that a trial is barred pursuant to CPL 40.20 by reason of a previous prosecution, and would violate the double jeopardy provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions.

[959]*959Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Dismissal of the indictment on statutory, as well as constitutional, double jeopardy grounds (see, CPL 40.20; NY Const, art I, § 6; US Const 5th, 14th Amends) is not warranted here since at the time it accepted a plea of guilty with respect to the misdemeanor information, the District Court of Suffolk County had been divested of jurisdiction over the matter by the indictment of the petitioner on felony narcotics charges (see, People v Carter, 134 Misc 2d 878, affd 155 AD2d 608; CPL 170.20 [1]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit further prosecution of the petitioner under Suffolk County indictment No. 818/89 on the ground that a trial is barred pursuant to CPL 40.20 by reason of a previous prosecution, and would violate the double jeopardy provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions.

[959]*959Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Dismissal of the indictment on statutory, as well as constitutional, double jeopardy grounds (see, CPL 40.20; NY Const, art I, § 6; US Const 5th, 14th Amends) is not warranted here since at the time it accepted a plea of guilty with respect to the misdemeanor information, the District Court of Suffolk County had been divested of jurisdiction over the matter by the indictment of the petitioner on felony narcotics charges (see, People v Carter, 134 Misc 2d 878, affd 155 AD2d 608; CPL 170.20 [1]). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A.D.2d 958, 560 N.Y.S.2d 151, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-vaughn-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack