People v. Simpkins

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Simpkins

193 Misc. 2d 447, 748 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1316

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 Misc. 2d 447 (People v. Simpkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Simpkins, 193 Misc. 2d 447, 748 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[448]*448OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 17, 2001 affirmed.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by the Criminal Court, that the People failed to comply with the speedy trial requirements of CPL 30.30. Each of the postreadiness adjournment periods now in dispute was properly charged to the People, since the delays resulted solely from the People’s repeated and unexplained unreadiness to proceed meaningfully at the combined suppression hearing twice scheduled upon ample notice. “[Bjecause the trial could simply not go forward until [defendant’s omnibus] motion was decided, the People’s dilatory conduct in [connection with the hearing] necessary to that decision was a direct, and virtually insurmountable, impediment to the trial’s very commencement” (People v McKenna, 76 NY2d 59, 64).

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.

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

[448]*448OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered October 17, 2001 affirmed.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by the Criminal Court, that the People failed to comply with the speedy trial requirements of CPL 30.30. Each of the postreadiness adjournment periods now in dispute was properly charged to the People, since the delays resulted solely from the People’s repeated and unexplained unreadiness to proceed meaningfully at the combined suppression hearing twice scheduled upon ample notice. “[Bjecause the trial could simply not go forward until [defendant’s omnibus] motion was decided, the People’s dilatory conduct in [connection with the hearing] necessary to that decision was a direct, and virtually insurmountable, impediment to the trial’s very commencement” (People v McKenna, 76 NY2d 59, 64).

McCooe, J.P., Gangel-Jacob and Schoenfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Misc. 2d 447, 748 N.Y.S.2d 445, 2002 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-simpkins-nyappterm-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack