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)

/by
You might also like
EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR EIGHT-YEAR-OLD WAS SUPPORTED; BUT THE DERIVATIVE EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT FINDING FOR THE FOUR-MONTH-OLD WAS NOT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIRE ESCAPE HOVERING OVER A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS HOSTILE AND CONTINUOUS FOR THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (SECOND DEPT).
Even Records Demonstrated to Be Material and Necessary to the Prosecution or Defense of an Action Are Not Discoverable If Privileged and the Privilege Is Not Waived
HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Order of Protection Reversed–Family Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction—Party Ordered to Stay Away Was Not Related to, a Member of the Household of, or in an Intimate Relationship With, the Subject of the Order of Protection
PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRE-ANSWER, PRE-DISCOVERY MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER OF TWO CORPORATIONS; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PART PERFORMANCE BY INACTION SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Court Properly Amended Pleadings Sua Sponte and Properly Allowed Plaintiff to Reopen the Case to Present Additional Evidence of Damages

Categories

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

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS... REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER PROPERLY...