You are here: / / ​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE T...
, ,

​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS, THE PEOPLE AGREED TO DISMISS THE TRAFFIC INFRACTION ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PEOPLE THEN APPEALED; THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVER A DISSENT, HELD THE MATTER WAS NOT REVIEWABLE (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, over a dissenting opinion, determined that the error was not reviewable because the People consented to it. In 2022 the Court of Appeals held that the statutory speedy trial rules do not apply to traffic infractions which stand alone, i.e., the traffic infraction is not charged along with a felony, misdemeanor or violation. The defendant’s traffic infraction had been dismissed on speedy-trial grounds with the People’s consent. The People then appealed the dismissal:

On appeal, the People contend that CPL 30.30 (1) (e)—which took effect more than a year before defendant was even charged—was enacted to clarify that CPL 30.30 (1) applies ” ‘to accusatory instruments charging traffic infractions jointly with a felony, misdemeanor, or violation,’ ” but that, as we stated in People v Galindo, ” ‘actions involving only traffic infractions would still not be covered by the speedy trial statute’ ” (quoting 38 NY3d 199, 201, 206 [2022] [emphasis added]). Thus, the instant appeal involves no intervening newly declared principle of law.

Because the People agreed in Town Court that CPL 30.30 applied to the simplified traffic information, the issue is unreviewable (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, we engender no unjust result by applying our well-settled principles governing reviewability to reject the People’s attempt to reinstate the accusatory instrument against this pro se defendant, now almost two years after dismissal, by renouncing their express concession that CPL 30.30 applied. People v Lovett, 2023 NY Slip Op 05348, CtApp 10-24-23

Practice Point: If the People agree to an erroneous ruling and then appeal that ruling, the matter may not be reviewable by an appellate court.

 

You might also like
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable
IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE TO THE INSURED FOR LOSSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TIME PERIODS WHEN LIABILITY INSURANCE WAS UNAVAILABLE (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Possession of a Controlled Substance May Be Proved Circumstantially/Permissible Inference that Possessors Know What They Possess
PROSECUTOR’S CHARACTERIZATION OF DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT IMPROPER, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
Sexual Conduct That Does Not Rise to the Level of a SORA Sex Offense May Be Considered Under the “Number of Victims” Risk Factor
Presumption of Validity of Town’s Property Tax Assessment Not Rebutted by Objective Data

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

IN A FALLING OBJECT CASE WHERE INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS ALLEGED, THE FACT... HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO ALLOW ADDING A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT...