Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Assuming, without deciding, that double jeopardy protections would be applicable here, the first two charges are distinct from the third for double jeopardy purposes and, thus, prosecution on the first two did not bar prosecution on the third (see CPL 40.20). Moreover petitioner did not move for a joint trial of the three charges (see CPL 40.40) and thus waived any right he might have had to object to separate prosecutions (see Serignese...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
