Scranton v. Supreme Court (36 N.Y.2d 704, 1975)

Memorandum. The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed,, without costs. A claim of a denial of a speedy trial is not cognizable in an application pursuant to CPLB article 78 for a judgment prohibiting a District Attorney and the Justices of the Supreme Court from proceeding on an indictment. (Matter of Watts v. Supreme Ct. of State of N. Y., 28 N Y 2d 714; Matter of Lee v. County Ct. of Erie County, 27 N Y 2d 432, 437; Matter of Blake v. Hogan, 25 N Y 2d 747.) While a double jeopardy claim may be raised in a prohibition proceeding (Matter of State of New York v. King, 36 N Y 2d 59, at p. 64; Matter of Kraemer v. County Ct. of Suffolk County, 6 N Y 2d 363), this petition should nevertheless be denied. The petitioner was not placed in jeopardy despite the fact that three jurors had been sworn before a mistrial was declared. (CPL 40.30, subd. 1, par. [b].)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Judgments affirmed.