People v. Stanley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stanley

275 A.D.2d 423, 712 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8857

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 21, 2000·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated September 1, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The People failed to demonstrate that the 168-day period during which the victim remained in China was excludable since they did not satisfy the due diligence requirement of the statute (see, CPL 30.30 [3] [b]; [4] [g]; People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706; cf., People v Belgrave, 226 AD2d 550). There is no evidence to support the People’s contention that the victim traveled to and remained in China to seek medical attention for the injuries she suffered as a result of the defendant’s alleged assault (see, People v Marshall, 91 AD2d 900, 901; cf., People v Martinez, 268 AD2d 354; People v Pharr, 204 AD2d 126, 127).

Accordingly, the indictment was properly dismissed pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Perone, J.), dated December 21, 1999, as, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order dated September 1, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The People failed to demonstrate that the 168-day period during which the victim remained in China was excludable since they did not satisfy the due diligence requirement of the statute (see, CPL 30.30 [3] [b]; [4] [g]; People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706; cf., People v Belgrave, 226 AD2d 550). There is no evidence to support the People’s contention that the victim traveled to and remained in China to seek medical attention for the injuries she suffered as a result of the defendant’s alleged assault (see, People v Marshall, 91 AD2d 900, 901; cf., People v Martinez, 268 AD2d 354; People v Pharr, 204 AD2d 126, 127).

Accordingly, the indictment was properly dismissed pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Stanley, 275 A.D.2d 423, 712 N.Y.S.2d 623, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Stanley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related