You are here: / / DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE,...

DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.

The Third Department determined the defendant’s motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation should not have been granted. The relevant period of postreadiness delay was due to motion practice by co-defendants and was therefore not chargeable to the People for any of the defendants:

The five codefendants who were named with defendant in the joint indictment were arrested and arraigned at various times. During the 27-day period that Supreme Court charged to the People as postreadiness delay, several of these codefendants were engaged in motion practice, including motions that were due but had not yet been filed, were awaiting the People’s response, or were awaiting the court’s decision. In a prosecution involving a single defendant, delay resulting from motion practice is not chargeable to the People (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]…). Likewise, periods of delay that result from motion practice by any codefendant in a joint prosecution are excludable as to all of them … . Defendant did not meet his burden to show that the delay resulting from his codefendants’ motion practice was unreasonably lengthy or that the exclusion provided by CPL 30.30 (4) (d) should not be applied here for any other reason … .

As the language of CPL 30.30 (4) (d) implies, a defendant’s remedy for delays caused by codefendants in a joint prosecution is to move for severance. Here, although defendant was represented by counsel throughout the pertinent period, he neither moved for severance at any time nor showed that good cause for severance existed … . Thus, the 27-day period charged by Supreme Court to the People as postreadiness delay should not have been added to the 163-day period of prereadiness delay, with the result that the People declared readiness within six months and complied with their statutory obligation. People v Chrysler, 2017 NY Slip Op 05477, 3rd Dept 7-6-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)/SPEEDY TRIAL (DELAY DUE TO MOTION PRACTICE BY CO-DEFENDANTS NOT CHARGEABLE TO THE PEOPLE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL VIOLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT)

You might also like
DESPITE REGISTERING TO VOTE IN WASHINGTON DC, CANDIDATE FOR STATE SENATE MET NEW YORK’S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS.
AFTER TRIGGERING A SECURITY ALARM AT A SPORTING GOODS STORE, DEFENDANT WAS DETAINED IN THE STORE FOR HALF AN HOUR IN THE PRESENCE OF POLICE OFFICERS WHOSE QUESTIONS WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE PETIT LARCENY INVESTIGATION RE: AMMUNITION, BUT RATHER RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF FIREARMS; DEFENDANT’S UNWARNED STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Conditions of Probation Which Allowed Release of Defendant’s Pre-Sentence Investigation Report Illegal
Hearsay Evidence of Another’s Admission to the Crime Warranted a Hearing Pursuant to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Conviction
COUNTY COURT DID NOT CORRECTLY APPLY THE CRITERIA OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) WHEN CONSIDERING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RESENTENCING; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT DETERMINED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A MORE LENIENT SENTENCE UNDER THE ACT AND RESENTENCED HER TO TIME SERVED (THIRD DEPT).
ACCEPTING THE ALLEGATIONS AS TRUE FOR PURPOSES OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, INSURANCE AGENT AND HIS EMPLOYERS OWED PLAINTIFF, THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY, A DUTY OF CARE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICY, RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE TO PRIVITY (THIRD DEPT).
Equipment Leases Are Not “Securities” for Purposes of Tax Law
PETITIONER HELD HIMSELF OUT AS THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE TAX TRIBUNAL PROPERLY FOUND PETITIONER WAS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR UNPAID EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER AND WAS PUT IN CHARGE ONLY TO ALLOW THE BUSINESS TO BE CERTIFIED AS A MINORITY BUSINESS-ENTERPRISE; THE IRS IN A PARALLEL PROCEEDING HAD ABSOLVED PETITIONER OF LIABILITY (THIRD 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

COUNTY COURT JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A VERDICT BASED UPON... DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW...