People v. Howell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Howell

265 A.D.2d 228, 696 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 228 (People v. Howell) 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. Howell, 265 A.D.2d 228, 696 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1997, dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment reinstated.

The motion court found that although the People had 183 days within which to answer ready for trial, there were 190 days of includable time. However, we find that the motion court erred in including the September 4 to 26, 1996 time period, since the Justice who ruled on the pretrial motions did not advise the parties of his intention to issue his rulings prior to the September 4 adjourned date and, in any case, the People were entitled to a reasonable adjournment to prepare for the multiple suppression hearings that were granted for the two separate defendants (see, People v Robinson, 225 AD2d 407, lv denied 88 NY2d 884; People v Greene, 223 AD2d 474, lv denied 88 NY2d 879; People v Green, 90 AD2d 705, lv denied 58 NY2d 784). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered on or about May 12, 1997, dismissing the indictment on speedy trial grounds, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the indictment reinstated.

The motion court found that although the People had 183 days within which to answer ready for trial, there were 190 days of includable time. However, we find that the motion court erred in including the September 4 to 26, 1996 time period, since the Justice who ruled on the pretrial motions did not advise the parties of his intention to issue his rulings prior to the September 4 adjourned date and, in any case, the People were entitled to a reasonable adjournment to prepare for the multiple suppression hearings that were granted for the two separate defendants (see, People v Robinson, 225 AD2d 407, lv denied 88 NY2d 884; People v Greene, 223 AD2d 474, lv denied 88 NY2d 879; People v Green, 90 AD2d 705, lv denied 58 NY2d 784). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 228, 696 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howell-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack