You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE...
,

ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE SOONER, FOR SPEEDY TRIAL PURPOSES THE PEOPLE CAN BE CHARGED ONLY WITH THE TIME NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENTIARY ISSUE; THE NEED FOR MORE INVESTIGATION DID NOT INVALIDATE THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENT OF READINESS WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN; THEREFORE THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy trial grounds. The People withdrew their statement of readiness stating that there was newly discovered evidence. Supreme Court found that the evidence was available early on and should have been discovered had the People been diligent.

The record shows that the People were not aware until April 30, 2019 that mistakes by police detectives had incorrectly led them to conclude that they could not locate the user of the Instagram account that had been used to send the photographs of defendant engaging in sexual acts with the victim to defendant’s ex-girlfriend. While we agree with the court that the People’s late realization was entirely due to the People’s failure to properly inspect the evidence within their possession, the time chargeable to the People is only the delay that is directly attributable to their inaction, and that which directly implicated their ability to proceed to trial … . Thus, the delay that is chargeable to the People due to their inaction with respect to the photographs is any additional time that they required to investigate the matter, which they could have previously investigated. Moreover, the People’s need to further investigate the photographs did not render their prior statement of readiness illusory because the record shows that, at the time they announced their readiness, the People would have been able to establish a prima facie case and proceed at trial … . People v Pratt, 2020 NY Slip Op 04662, fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
WAIVER OF INDICTMENT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE; APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE NOT INCLUDED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT; THEREFORE REFERENCES TO A LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINTIFFS’ BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE STRICKEN (FOURTH DEPT).
PENNSYLVANIA CRIME IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE NEAR A SUSPECTED DRUG HOUSE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA GAVE RISE TO ONLY A GROUNDED SUSPICION; THE ATTEMPT TO STOP THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE SEIZED EVIDENCE AND THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA, WHICH ENCOMPASSED AN UNRELATED OFFENSE, WAS VACATED IN ITS ENTIRETY (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION OF A NEW INJURY IN A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE MOTION COURT.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TOWN EASEMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE SUCH THAT THE LAND CANNOT BE CONVEYED TO A DEVELOPER WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL; OPEN MEETINGS LAW WAS NOT VIOLATED BY POSTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ONLY SEVEN HOURS BEFORE THE TOWN MEETING (FOURTH DEPT).
Suppression Motion Should Not Have Been Granted, Officers Had “Objective Credible Reason” to Approach.
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH 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

PLAINTIFF AT-WILL EMPLOYEE WAS ENTITLED TO COMMISSIONS EARNED ON HIS ACCOUNTS... THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT...