People v. Galindo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Galindo

278 A.D.2d 243, 716 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12521

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 243 (People v. Galindo) 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

People v. Galindo, 278 A.D.2d 243, 716 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), dated December 20, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that the attorney for the defendant consented to an adjournment from September 23, 1999, to October 12, 1999. That period of time should not have been charged to the People (see, CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; People v Liotta, 79 NY2d 841; People v Notholt, 242 AD2d 251). Therefore, the People were ready within the 180-day period defined in CPL 30.30, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment should have been denied. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), dated December 20, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that the attorney for the defendant consented to an adjournment from September 23, 1999, to October 12, 1999. That period of time should not have been charged to the People (see, CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; People v Liotta, 79 NY2d 841; People v Notholt, 242 AD2d 251). Therefore, the People were ready within the 180-day period defined in CPL 30.30, and the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment should have been denied. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 243, 716 N.Y.S.2d 908, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-galindo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack