People v. Leavy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leavy

204 A.D.2d 898, 612 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 898 (People v. Leavy) 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. Leavy, 204 A.D.2d 898, 612 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Essex County (Dawson, J.), entered August 9, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

On July 29, 1992, defendant was arrested and arraigned on felony complaints charging him with driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. Defendant was indicted on these charges, inter alia, on January 25, 1993. On January 29, 1993 the People filed their statement of readiness for trial with the clerk of the court and served a copy upon defendant. The arraignment took place on March 8, 1993 and defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on April 9, 1993 as untimely pursuant to CPL 30.30. County Court granted defendant’s motion. The People appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, the People’s announcement of their readiness for trial, which preceded defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, was ineffectual (see, People v England, 195 AD2d 751, 752, lv denied 82 NY2d 753; People v Battaglia, 187 AD2d 808, 810). Furthermore, the delay of over seven months which preceded defendant’s arraignment in County Court constituted a direct impediment to commencement of the trial within the statutory period and was therefore chargeable to the People in the absence of any excuse or explanation for that delay (see, People v England, supra, at 752-753). Consequently, County Court’s dismissal of the indictment based upon the failure of the People to be ready for trial within six months from the commencement of the action was proper (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]).

White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

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

Cardona, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Essex County (Dawson, J.), entered August 9, 1993, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

On July 29, 1992, defendant was arrested and arraigned on felony complaints charging him with driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree. Defendant was indicted on these charges, inter alia, on January 25, 1993. On January 29, 1993 the People filed their statement of readiness for trial with the clerk of the court and served a copy upon defendant. The arraignment took place on March 8, 1993 and defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on April 9, 1993 as untimely pursuant to CPL 30.30. County Court granted defendant’s motion. The People appeal.

Under the circumstances of this case, the People’s announcement of their readiness for trial, which preceded defendant’s arraignment on the indictment, was ineffectual (see, People v England, 195 AD2d 751, 752, lv denied 82 NY2d 753; People v Battaglia, 187 AD2d 808, 810). Furthermore, the delay of over seven months which preceded defendant’s arraignment in County Court constituted a direct impediment to commencement of the trial within the statutory period and was therefore chargeable to the People in the absence of any excuse or explanation for that delay (see, People v England, supra, at 752-753). Consequently, County Court’s dismissal of the indictment based upon the failure of the People to be ready for trial within six months from the commencement of the action was proper (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]).

White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 898, 612 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leavy-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack