From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Colon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1983)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Colon and Sturgis, the Court of Appeals ruled that the absence of a defendant did not prevent the People from filing accusatory instruments, and that as a consequence, any delays attributable to a failure to so file did not "result from" the defendant's absence, and therefore were not excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (see, People v Bratton, 103 A.D.2d 368, 369, affd 65 N.Y.2d 675; Bellacosa, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 30.30 [1991 Supp Pamph], at 62; People v Rodriguez, 132 Misc.2d 1044, 1046-1047).

Summary of this case from People v. Bolden
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

Argued June 2, 1983

Decided June 28, 1983

Appeal from the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, JEFFREY M. ATLAS, J.

Marilyn A. Kneeland and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney ( Susan Corkery and Robert M. Pitler of counsel), for respondent.

Order reversed and order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, reinstated for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge JEFFREY ATLAS at the Criminal Court ( 110 Misc.2d 917; People v Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 824; People v Sturgis, 38 N.Y.2d 625).

Concur: Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER and SIMONS.

Summaries of

People v. Colon

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 28, 1983
59 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1983)

In Colon and Sturgis, the Court of Appeals ruled that the absence of a defendant did not prevent the People from filing accusatory instruments, and that as a consequence, any delays attributable to a failure to so file did not "result from" the defendant's absence, and therefore were not excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (c) (see, People v Bratton, 103 A.D.2d 368, 369, affd 65 N.Y.2d 675; Bellacosa, Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 30.30 [1991 Supp Pamph], at 62; People v Rodriguez, 132 Misc.2d 1044, 1046-1047).

Summary of this case from People v. Bolden

In Colon, the Court held that defendant's absence could not be excluded pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (c) as delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of defendant, because during the period of absence the People had failed to convert the complaint to an information.

Summary of this case from People v. D'Aquino
Case details for

People v. Colon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL COLON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 28, 1983

Citations

59 N.Y.2d 921 (N.Y. 1983)
466 N.Y.S.2d 319
453 N.E.2d 548

Citing Cases

People v. Surita

The defense urges that the case be dismissed because 107 days elapsed without the People's having converted 2…

People v. Cruz

No, unless the excludable ground(s) delay(s), impede(s), or prevent(s) the filing of the superseding…

127 Citing Cases