People v. Meierdiercks

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Meierdiercks

496 N.E.2d 210, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19017

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by56 cases

This text of 496 N.E.2d 210 (People v. Meierdiercks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Meierdiercks, 496 N.E.2d 210, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19017 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In the three appeals before us, defendants sought dismissal of indictments pursuant to CPL 30.30, alleging lengthy preindictment delays attributable in material part to adjournments of preliminary hearings. In the first case, People v Meierdiercks, the adjournment was ordered sua sponte by the local criminal court, after defense counsel had pointed out that the complaint did not accurately describe the purportedly stolen check. No motion was made by defendant, and the adjournment was neither requested nor consented to by her or her counsel. By contrast, in People v Boyd and People v Harris, defendants requested or consented to adjournments of preliminary hearings, thus expressly waiving any objection to those delays (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]). While defendants in all three cases contend that the periods of delay should be included because they did not prevent the People from seeking indictments, as we recognized in People v Worley (66 NY2d 523, 527) the controlling consideration is not whether defendants’ actions prevented the People from obtaining accusatory instruments *615 sufficient for trial, but whether defendants waived the delay in the proceedings by requesting or consenting to the adjournments. Thus, in Meierdiercks, where there was no waiver by defendant, the sua sponte adjournment period was properly charged against the People and the indictment dismissed, and in People v Boyd and People v Harris, where there were express waivers, the delay periods were correctly excluded and defendants’ motions to dismiss properly denied.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In the three appeals before us, defendants sought dismissal of indictments pursuant to CPL 30.30, alleging lengthy preindictment delays attributable in material part to adjournments of preliminary hearings. In the first case, People v Meierdiercks, the adjournment was ordered sua sponte by the local criminal court, after defense counsel had pointed out that the complaint did not accurately describe the purportedly stolen check. No motion was made by defendant, and the adjournment was neither requested nor consented to by her or her counsel. By contrast, in People v Boyd and People v Harris, defendants requested or consented to adjournments of preliminary hearings, thus expressly waiving any objection to those delays (CPL 30.30 [4] [b]). While defendants in all three cases contend that the periods of delay should be included because they did not prevent the People from seeking indictments, as we recognized in People v Worley (66 NY2d 523, 527) the controlling consideration is not whether defendants’ actions prevented the People from obtaining accusatory instruments *615 sufficient for trial, but whether defendants waived the delay in the proceedings by requesting or consenting to the adjournments. Thus, in Meierdiercks, where there was no waiver by defendant, the sua sponte adjournment period was properly charged against the People and the indictment dismissed, and in People v Boyd and People v Harris, where there were express waivers, the delay periods were correctly excluded and defendants’ motions to dismiss properly denied.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 N.E.2d 210, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meierdiercks-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack