You are here: / / IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND...

IF THE PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S LOCATION OUT-OF-STATE AND DID NOT EXERCISE “DUE DILIGENCE” IN SECURING HER RETURN TO NEW YORK THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK WOULD NOT STOP RUNNING BASED SOLELY ON HER ABSENCE; HEARING REQUIRED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant had raised questions of fact whether the People were aware of her location in Virginia between her indictment in 2013 and her return to New York in 2018. County Court, therefore, should have held a hearing on her “speedy trial” motion to dismiss. If the People were aware of her location, and did not exercise “due diligence” to secure her presence in New York, the speedy trial clock would not have been stopped based solely on defendant’s absence from the state:

“Having charged defendant with a felony, the People were required to be ready for trial within six months of the filing of the first accusatory instrument, here the felony complaint[s]” issued on September 3, 2013 … . As defendant consistently asserted her speedy trial rights, and the People did not announce readiness for trial until October 3, 2018, it was incumbent upon the People “to show that any delay beyond the statutory maximum should be excluded” … . The People primarily attempted to do so by relying upon CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (i), which renders “the period of delay resulting from [defendant’s] absence or unavailability” excludable, arguing that defendant had absconded after the shooting and remained unavailable until her arrest on August 30, 2018. Absence in that context means that the defendant’s “location is unknown and he [or she] is attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution, or his [or her] location cannot be determined by due diligence,” while unavailability occurs “whenever [the defendant’s] location is known but his [or her] presence for trial cannot be obtained by due diligence” … . Notably, “[a]bsent a demonstration of ‘prosecutorial diligence in locating the defendant and/or securing his [or her] presence,’ the mere fact that the defendant was in another jurisdiction when the action was commenced does not entitle the People to exclude the time” … . People v Pittman, 2023 NY Slip Op 06001, Third Dept 11-22-23

Practice Point: The defendant presented documentary evidence demonstrating the People were aware of her location out-of-state and did not exercise “due diligence” in securing her return to the state for five years. She was entitled to a hearing on her “speedy trial” motion to dismiss.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT OF ANOTHER CHILD IS ADMISSIBLE IN A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING; ALTHOUGH CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES RECORDS REGARDING NEGLECT ARE HEARSAY, THE HEARSAY IS ADMSSSIBLE IF CORROBORATED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER ENTITLED TO A FRYE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN ‘OTHER SPECIFIED PARAPHILIC DISORDER’ (OSPD) DIAGNOSIS IN THIS DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER CIVIL CONFINEMENT HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
REVERSING SUPREME COURT THE THIRD DEPT NOTED THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MAY BE AWARDED ON THE BASIS OF AN UNPLEADED CAUSE OF ACTION AND DID SO IN FAVOR OF THE TOWN IN THIS ZONING AND BUILDING CODE VIOLATION CASE (THIRD DEPT).
Strip Search After Controlled Buy Upheld
WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN BAD FAITH.
THE BOARD’S REVERSAL OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S FINDING CLAIMANT HAD NOT MADE A WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION WAS BASED ON SPECULATION AND SURMISE (THIRD DEPT).
HEARSAY CONSTITUTED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPORTED THE ABUSE REPORT.

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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT... THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE MURDERS...