You are here: / / Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment...

Delay In Seeking DNA Sample Contributed to Violation of Speedy Trial Statute—Indictment Dismissed

The Second Department dismissed the indictment because the unexcused delay in seeking a DNA sample resulted in the violation of the speedy trial statute (CPL 30.30):

The defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial. Contrary to the People’s contention, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA sample from the defendant, the 161-day period between June 5, 2009, and November 13, 2009, was not excludable on the ground that their need to obtain the DNA test results constituted excusable, exceptional circumstances (see CPL 30.30[4][g]…). Adding this period of time to the periods of delay correctly conceded by the People, the People exceeded the six-month period in which they were required to be ready for trial (see CPL 30.30[1][a]). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 granted, and the indictment dismissed. People v Clarke, 2014 NY Slip Op 07680, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

You might also like
THE LETTER OF INTENT WAS NOT A BINDING REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE BREACH OF CONTRACT, BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE,” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Summary-Judgment Proof Requirements for a Defendant in a Slip and Fall Case Explained (Again)–Not Met Here
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE FOUNDATIONAL AFFIDAVIT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN THE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSE THEY WERE RENTING (SECOND DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD WAS “IRRATIONAL;” THE CORRECTIONS OFFICERS WERE TREATED ONLY ON THE DAY OF THEIR INJURIES, LOST NO WORK AND HAD NO OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES; THEY WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MEDICAL BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) AND THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW (SECOND DEPT). ​
Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral Modification Even Where the Written Agreement Prohibits Oral Modification
ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Work Performed by Plaintiff Was Not “Home Improvement”—No... Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Fing...