People v. Santiago
Opinion
| People v Santiago |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 04982 |
| Decided on October 9, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on October 9, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
HELEN VOUTSINAS
CARL J. LANDICINO
JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
2022-10105
(Ind. No. 10018/21)
v
Sekou Santiago, respondent.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Eric C. Washer, and Danielle M. O'Boyle of counsel), for appellant.
Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, NY, for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), dated August 30, 2022, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment insofar as asserted against him on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment insofar as asserted against him on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial is denied, the indictment insofar as asserted against the defendant is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictment insofar as asserted against the defendant.
On June 30, 2021, the defendant was arraigned on an indictment charging him, along with several codefendants, inter alia, with conspiracy in the second degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree. The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment insofar as asserted against him on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The People opposed the motion, contending, among other things, that the 53-day period from August 20, 2021, to October 12, 2021, was excludable under CPL 30.30(4)(g). In an order dated August 30, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The People appeal.
Where, as here, a defendant is charged with a felony, the People are required to be ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action (see id. § 30.30[1][a]; People v Brown, 28 NY3d 392, 403; People v Sinistaj, 67 NY2d 236, 239). "The failure to declare readiness within the statutory time limit will result in dismissal of the prosecution, unless the People can demonstrate that certain time periods should be excluded" (People v Price, 14 NY3d 61, 63; see People v Brown, 28 NY3d at 403). Here, the six-month period referable to this case, measured from June 30, 2021, consisted of 183 days. The Supreme Court determined that 203 days were chargeable to the People.
The People correctly contend that the 53-day period from August 20, 2021, to October 12, 2021, was excludable under the CPL 30.30(4)(g) exceptional circumstances exclusion in view of the voluminous discovery materials involved here and the People's diligent efforts in producing [*2]them (see People v Smietana, 98 NY2d 336, 341; People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706, 708; People v Brown, 228 AD3d 884, 885; People v Cowan, 228 AD3d 684, 685), "notwithstanding the People's mandatory discovery obligations under CPL 245.20" (People v Leonard, 218 AD3d 608, 610; see People v Brown, 228 AD3d at 885; People v Cowan, 228 AD3d at 685; People v Carter, 228 AD3d 682, 683).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., VOUTSINAS, LANDICINO and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 NY Slip Op 04982 (People v. Santiago) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.