You are here: / / INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT...

INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS.

The Second Department dismissed defendant's indictment on speedy trial grounds. The court found (1) defendant did not consent to the 121-day delay to obtain DNA test results, (2) the defendant did not seek the DNA test results in discovery, and (3) the People did not exercise due diligence in obtaining the DNA test results:

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not consent to a 121-day period of delay …, while the People were awaiting the DNA test results … , and the People did not establish that the defendant expressly sought the DNA test results as part of a discovery request … . In addition, because the People failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining DNA evidence, that period of delay 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]). People v Cox, 2016 NY Slip Op 04070, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

CRIMINAL LAW (INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS)/SPEEDY TRIAL (INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS)

You might also like
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID, COURT NOT BOUND BY PURPORTED COMMITMENT TO A PARTICULAR SENTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, PRESENTENCE REPORT INADEQUATE, SENTENCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303, INCLUDING THE REQUIRED TYPE SIZE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.
Intoxication Jury Instruction Was Warranted, Conviction Reversed
DEFENDANT NEVER CONSENTED TO THE SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SERVED ON THE PURPORTED SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, WAS NEVER SERVED UPON DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE NULLIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE GOVERNOR’S COVID-19-RELATED REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE ELECTION LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF DESIGNATING-PETITION SIGNATURES UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY CHARTER (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Violated When Officer Opened an Envelope Containing Defendant’s Personal Belongings at the Hospital Where Defendant Was Being Treated—The Fact that the Officer Thought Defendant Was a Crime Victim at the Time Does Not Matter—The Personal Belongings, Which Included Evidence of a Robbery, Should Have Been Suppressed
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

DOG-BITE COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED. REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER PROPERLY...