From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goode

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

June 12, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's sole argument on appeal is that, in deciding the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds (see, CPL 30.30), the Supreme Court incorrectly excluded the 35-day period from February 27, 1992, to April 2, 1992, in calculating the length of the delay chargeable to the People. We disagree. During that period, the defendant was incarcerated in another jurisdiction and subject to a medical quarantine, rendering him unavailable (see, CPL 30.30 [c]; see also, CPL 30.30 [g]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the defendant's medically necessary confinement in another jurisdiction prevented the People from properly declaring their readiness for trial (see, People v. England, 84 N.Y.2d 1, 4; People v. Caussade, 162 A.D.2d 4, 8). Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Goode

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 12, 1995
216 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Goode

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SYLVESTER GOODE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 12, 1995

Citations

216 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
628 N.Y.S.2d 727

Citing Cases

People v. Tucker

( Id. at pp. 587-588.) Over the years, courts in other states have confronted similar situations and have…

People v. Tucker

( Id. at pp. 587–588, 261 P. 731.) Over the years, courts in other states have confronted similar situations…