People v. Monroe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Monroe

172 A.D.2d 1072, 571 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1072 (People v. Monroe) 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. Monroe, 172 A.D.2d 1072, 571 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Evaluating the circumstances of this case in light of the five relevant factors identified by the Court of Appeals in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442), we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We note that the extent of the delay was neither unusual nor unreasonable, that defendant was responsible for most of the delay between his arraignment and his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, and that defendant did not allege or establish any prejudice to his defense as a result of the delay in prosecution. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Evaluating the circumstances of this case in light of the five relevant factors identified by the Court of Appeals in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442), we conclude that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We note that the extent of the delay was neither unusual nor unreasonable, that defendant was responsible for most of the delay between his arraignment and his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, and that defendant did not allege or establish any prejudice to his defense as a result of the delay in prosecution. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Buckley, J.—Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1072, 571 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-monroe-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack