People v. Hargro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hargro

144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14466

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 971 (People v. Hargro) 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. Hargro, 144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order which dismissed an indictment charging defendant with felony driving while intoxicated because the People failed to provide defendant with his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). The mere announcement of readiness for trial by a prosecutor does not satisfy the People’s statutory obligation because the People must be able to substantiate that they are in fact ready to proceed (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337; People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656). Only then may the court ascertain whether the People "effectively” announced their readiness for trial (People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413, 417). Here, the court’s finding that the People did not satisfy their burden in demonstrating their continued readiness during the period in question is amply supported by the record. Since 189 days were chargeable to the People, the court properly granted defendant’s speedy trial motion. (Appeal from order of Erie [972]*972County Court, Drury, J. — dismiss indictment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The People appeal from an order which dismissed an indictment charging defendant with felony driving while intoxicated because the People failed to provide defendant with his statutory right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). The mere announcement of readiness for trial by a prosecutor does not satisfy the People’s statutory obligation because the People must be able to substantiate that they are in fact ready to proceed (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337; People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656). Only then may the court ascertain whether the People "effectively” announced their readiness for trial (People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413, 417). Here, the court’s finding that the People did not satisfy their burden in demonstrating their continued readiness during the period in question is amply supported by the record. Since 189 days were chargeable to the People, the court properly granted defendant’s speedy trial motion. (Appeal from order of Erie [972]*972County Court, Drury, J. — dismiss indictment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 971, 534 N.Y.S.2d 274, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hargro-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack