People v. Lourens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lourens

208 A.D.2d 768, 617 N.Y.S.2d 779

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 768 (People v. Lourens) 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. Lourens, 208 A.D.2d 768, 617 N.Y.S.2d 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered October 11, 1990, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly concluded that the People had effectively communicated their readiness for trial on May 8, 1989, within the six-month time period set forth in CPL 30.30 (see, People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331; see also, People v Cumberbatch, 171 AD2d 671), a finding of fact which we decline to disturb.

The court also properly charged the People for only one additional day of post-readiness delay caused by the unavailability of their trial assistant on June 25, 1990. Unlike the facts of People v Jones (68 NY2d 717), the People here indi[769]*769cated that they had a substitute trial assistant available for the next day. The court found that the subsequent delay after June 25 was caused by its own attendance at a judicial seminar, a period that it properly refused to charge against the People (see, People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201; People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529). Under the circumstances, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that she did not receive a speedy trial was properly denied.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered October 11, 1990, convicting her of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly concluded that the People had effectively communicated their readiness for trial on May 8, 1989, within the six-month time period set forth in CPL 30.30 (see, People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331; see also, People v Cumberbatch, 171 AD2d 671), a finding of fact which we decline to disturb.

The court also properly charged the People for only one additional day of post-readiness delay caused by the unavailability of their trial assistant on June 25, 1990. Unlike the facts of People v Jones (68 NY2d 717), the People here indi[769]*769cated that they had a substitute trial assistant available for the next day. The court found that the subsequent delay after June 25 was caused by its own attendance at a judicial seminar, a period that it properly refused to charge against the People (see, People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201; People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529). Under the circumstances, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that she did not receive a speedy trial was properly denied.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 768, 617 N.Y.S.2d 779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lourens-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack