From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Defilippo v. Rooney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 2007
46 A.D.3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2007-03737.

December 11, 2007.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to bar the retrial of the petitioner in an action entitled People v DeFilippo, pending in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, under indictment No. 295/04, on the ground that retrial would violate his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

Gary DeFilippo, Brooklyn, N.Y., petitioner pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Constantine A. Speres of counsel), for respondent Stephen J. Rooney.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jeffrey Levitt and Frank Santarpia of counsel), respondent pro se.

Before: Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.


Adjudged that the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the extraordinary remedy of prohibition based on his claim that the District Attorney of Richmond County is barred from further prosecuting him on the ground that retrial would violate his right not to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense ( see Matter ofHoltzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569). Since the petitioner requested the mistrial that was granted by the trial court, he must demonstrate prosecutorial or judicial misconduct intended to provoke him into requesting a mistrial in order to establish that a retrial is barred by the principles of double jeopardy ( see Oregon v Kennedy, 456 US 667, 673-679; see also Matter of Majestic Collectibles v Farneti, 308 AD2d 492). The petitioner failed to meet this burden.

With respect to the petitioner's remaining claims, the remedies of prohibition and mandamus are not available, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought ( see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d at 569; Matter of Henry v Namm, 136 AD2d 585; Matter of Justice v Easier, 122 AD2d 603; Matter of Goetz v Crane, 111 AD2d 729, 730; Matter of Kopilas v People, 111 AD2d 174).


Summaries of

Defilippo v. Rooney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 11, 2007
46 A.D.3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Defilippo v. Rooney

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of GARY DEFILIPPO, Petitioner, v. STEPHEN J. ROONEY et al…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 11, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9773
847 N.Y.S.2d 617

Citing Cases

Jayson v. Barbara

The People satisfactorily established each of these elements. Upon balancing the seriousness of the crime,…

In re King

The People satisfactorily established each of these elements. Accordingly, the petitioner failed to…