People v. Reid

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reid

110 A.D.2d 663, 487 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48562

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

DecidedApril 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 663 (People v. Reid) 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. Reid, 110 A.D.2d 663, 487 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48562 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

We find, based upon our review of the minutes of the hearing held pursuant to our order of June 4, 1984, that the People met their burden of establishing the unavailability of a principal prosecution witness, for medical reasons, for a period in excess of nine days (see, People v Goodman, 41 NY2d 888; People v Marshall, 91 AD2d 900).

Accordingly, the period from the commencement of the proceeding to the People’s readiness for trial, less any excludable periods, did not exceed six months, and dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) was not required.

We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

We find, based upon our review of the minutes of the hearing held pursuant to our order of June 4, 1984, that the People met their burden of establishing the unavailability of a principal prosecution witness, for medical reasons, for a period in excess of nine days (see, People v Goodman, 41 NY2d 888; People v Marshall, 91 AD2d 900).

Accordingly, the period from the commencement of the proceeding to the People’s readiness for trial, less any excludable periods, did not exceed six months, and dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) was not required.

We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 663, 487 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reid-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack