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
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED THAT THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (A PROPERTY OWNER WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR A SNOW AND ICE CONDITION UNTIL A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE PRECIPITATION HAS STOPPED); THE BURDEN THEN SHIFTED TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW DEFENDANT’S EFFORT TO REMOVE SNOW HOURS BEFORE THE FALL CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; TO MEET THAT BURDEN AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WAS NOT, SUBMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
DRUG FACTORY JURY INSTRUCTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE BUILDING OWNER HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE ELEVATOR MISLEVELING, EVIDENCE THE ELEVATOR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND THE APPLICABILITY OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THREE CRITERIA FOR VACATING A CONVICTION EXPLAINED, HERE DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN CORRECTLY INFORMED BY COUNSEL OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF TWO PRIOR BURGLARIES WAS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE, THE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARIES RENDERED THE EVIDENCE TOO PREJUDICIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEALED THE ENTIRE COURT RECORD, REDACTION IS APPROPRIATE FOR TRADE SECRETS (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...