From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giordano

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 524 (N.Y. 1982)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming the order of the Appellate Division where the "People established their continued readiness for trial" during a period where the defendant "was out of the court’s jurisdiction" and continued to do so until defendant was brought to trial and the People "further established that the delay was due to court congestion"

Summary of this case from People v. Labate
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Argued February 12, 1982

Decided March 23, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, ROSE LA MENDOLA, J.

Joseph B. Mistrett and Rose H. Sconiers for appellant.

Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney ( John De Franks and Kurt T. Sajda of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

We agree with the Appellate Division that when the District Attorney had announced his readiness on the record he had satisfied his obligation under CPL 30.30. Whatever may in fact have been the reason why the case was not reached for trial thereafter, there is no basis for dismissal pursuant to that statute (cf. People v Brothers, 50 N.Y.2d 413, 417).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Summaries of

People v. Giordano

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 23, 1982
56 N.Y.2d 524 (N.Y. 1982)

affirming the order of the Appellate Division where the "People established their continued readiness for trial" during a period where the defendant "was out of the court’s jurisdiction" and continued to do so until defendant was brought to trial and the People "further established that the delay was due to court congestion"

Summary of this case from People v. Labate

In Giordano, the defendant argued that the holding of People v Brothers (supra) was applicable, i.e., that the delay caused by court congestion was to be charged to the People, even if that delay occurred after the People announced, on the record, their readiness for trial.

Summary of this case from People v. Jones

In People v Giordano (56 N.Y.2d 524, supra), the People did announce, on the record, their readiness for trial within the required six-month period and the case was subsequently delayed because of court congestion.

Summary of this case from People v. Jones

In People v Giordano (56 N.Y.2d 524, 525), the Court of Appeals confirmed the rule "that when the District Attorney had announced his readiness on the record he had satisfied his obligation under CPL 30.30. Whatever may in fact have been the reason why the case was not reached for trial thereafter, there is no basis for dismissal pursuant to that statute (cf.

Summary of this case from People v. Morrell
Case details for

People v. Giordano

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEONARD GIORDANO…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 23, 1982

Citations

56 N.Y.2d 524 (N.Y. 1982)
449 N.Y.S.2d 955
434 N.E.2d 1333

Citing Cases

People v. Jones

On the instant appeal, the People of the State of New York contend that Criminal Term erred in granting…

People v. Labate

While court congestion may prevent a trial, in no sense does it operate to prevent the District Attorney from…

105 Citing Cases