You are here: / / JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE...
,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE’S LATE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE COURT’S MOTION TIMETABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the trial judge should not have refused to consider a late response to the defense motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (CPL 30.30):

Clearly, trial courts have considerable discretion in administering litigation and managing their dockets … . We agree with the dissent that parties are obligated to honor court-imposed deadlines. However, it is also axiomatic that justice is best served when cases are decided on the merits. …

Here, the People sought to file their opposition papers on the decision date, some 15 days after the due date. This was not the situation in People v Cole, 73 NY2d 957 [1989], which was cited by the motion court, where the People failed to submit any opposition papers. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that there was any history of dilatory conduct or a blatant disregard of court directives on the part of the People. Rather, this appears to be an isolated lapse.

While we are certainly cognizant of the frustration occasioned by the failure of the People to adhere to the motion schedule, summarily granting the defense motion to dismiss without considering the merits of the response the People had prepared was improper. As the People argue, the charges here are serious. Defendant was indicted on numerous weapons possession charges. Dismissal of those charges without a full and complete determination of the motion to dismiss on its merits was unduly harsh. Less drastic remedies, including charging the People for the 15-day delay, were available … . People v Lora, 2019 NY Slip Op 08478, First Dept 11-21-19

 

You might also like
IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING STEMMING FROM THE PARENTS’ REFUSAL TO ALLOW THEIR TEENAGE CHILD TO RETURN HOME, THE PARENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF THEIR TEENAGE CHILD’S BEHAVIOR WHICH RESULTED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND AN ORDER OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF FATHER, AS WELL AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MEET WITH THE AGENCY AND WORK OUT A PLAN (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S CASE WAS CLOSED; THE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S ULTIMATE SUCCESS WAS UNLIKELY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
RPAPL 1301, WHICH PROHIBITS SIMULTANEOUS ACTIONS AT LAW TO RECOVER ON A NOTE AND ACTIONS IN EQUITY TO FORECLOSE A MORTGAGE, DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE PROPERTIES; RPAPL 1371 DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE FORECLOSURES AND THEREFORE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS TO DEEM A JUDGMENT SATISFIED UPON A FORECLOSURE SALE (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED “SEARCHING INQUIRY” RE: WHETHER FATHER WAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY WAIVING HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT VIDEO-HOSTING SERVICE, VIMEO, DID NOT BREACH ITS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF BY REMOVING FIVE VIDEOS POSTED BY PLAINTIFF CLAIMING CHILDHOOD VACCINATION LEADS TO AUTISM; THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT AUTHORIZES INTERNET PROVIDERS TO REMOVE “OBJECTIONABLE” MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE CONTEXT, THE BANK, WHEN MOVING FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, GETS TWO CHANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; IF THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, THE BANK MUST BE ALLOWED TO TRY AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).
Warrantless Search of Backpack After Juvenile Was Handcuffed and Placed in a Police Car Justified by “Close Spatial and Temporal Proximity” and “Exigent Circumstances”
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST 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

MOTION FOR SEVERANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT EACH... A PERSON NOT NAMED ON THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RPAPL 1304 NOTICE...