You are here: / / THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN...

THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN ORDER FOR A STATEMENT OF READINESS TO BE VALID; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATEMENTS OF READINESS WERE NOT ILLUSORY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s speedy-trial dismissal of the indictment, over a dissent, determined County Court should not have deemed several of the prosecutor’s statements of readiness illusory because the witnesses were not ready for trial at the time the statements were made:

Prior to August 4, 2021, no adjournment was caused by the People’s failure to have their witnesses ready for trial. Rather, the matter was adjourned on those occasions due to other, older matters proceeding to trial before this case was reached. “The People are not required to contact their witnesses on every adjourned date . . . , nor do they have to be able to produce their witnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid” … . To the contrary, ” ‘[p]ostreadiness delay may be charge[able] to the People when the delay is attributable to their inaction and directly implicates their ability to proceed to trial’ ” … . Here, although the time after the People withdrew their statement of readiness was properly charged to them, there was no prior delay attributable to the People’s inaction. Consequently, the prior statements of readiness were not illusory … . People v Hill, 2022 NY Slip Op 05626, Fourth Dept 10-7-22

Practice Point: Here the prosecutor acknowledged the trial witnesses had not be contacted at the time statements of readiness were made because other trials were scheduled before the trial in this case. No delay was attributable to the People’s inaction. Therefore the statements of readiness should not have been deemed illusory and the indictment should not have been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds.

 

You might also like
AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PARTY STATEMENT AND A NON-PARTY AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT)
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A BREAKWALL AND RETAINING WALLS ON LAKEFRONT PROPERTY WERE FENCES WHICH VIOLATED THE CODE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
A RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS DEALS ONLY WITH THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLEADINGS AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT OF THE OFFENSE ON TRIAL, DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY THEIR JOB WAS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH THEREBY DIMINISHING THE PEOPLE’S BURDEN OF PROOF, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL INDICATED TO THE JURY DEFENDANT HAD TEN PRIOR CONVICTIONS, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE DETERIORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FATHER AND MOTHER WAS A SUFFICIENT... THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION...