People v. Brash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brash

228 A.D.2d 687, 644 N.Y.2d 980, 644 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial had been violated (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). It is uncontroverted that the subject six-month period consisted of 184 days and, in dismissing the [688] indictment, the court determined that 189 days were chargeable to the People. However, in rendering its determination the court erroneously charged the People with a 12-day period of delay which occurred between November 10, 1994, and November 22, 1994. The record of the November 10, 1994, calendar call before Justice Plug evinces that defense counsel clearly expressed his consent to this adjournment (see generally, People v Smith, 82 NY2d 676, 678; People v Liotta, 79 NY2d 841, 843). Since the subject 12-day period is dispositive with reference to the defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, the defendant’s motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court erred in determining that the defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial had been violated (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]). It is uncontroverted that the subject six-month period consisted of 184 days and, in dismissing the [688] indictment, the court determined that 189 days were chargeable to the People. However, in rendering its determination the court erroneously charged the People with a 12-day period of delay which occurred between November 10, 1994, and November 22, 1994. The record of the November 10, 1994, calendar call before Justice Plug evinces that defense counsel clearly expressed his consent to this adjournment (see generally, People v Smith, 82 NY2d 676, 678; People v Liotta, 79 NY2d 841, 843). Since the subject 12-day period is dispositive with reference to the defendant’s CPL 30.30 motion, the defendant’s motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment. Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

People v. Brash, 228 A.D.2d 687, 644 N.Y.2d 980, 644 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 687 (People v. Brash) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related