From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grafton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 29, 1988
73 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued October 20, 1988

Decided November 29, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Vincent E. Doyle, J.

Richard T. Sullivan and Thomas M. Moll for appellant.

Kevin M. Dillon, District Attorney (Louis A. Haremski and John J. DeFranks of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

As the Appellate Division recognized, the factors to be considered by that court on a motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 are not the same as those determining the reasonableness of an appellant's request for an extension of time to perfect an appeal. We cannot say that the Appellate Division erred as matter of law in concluding that the period April 20 to August 30, 1985 was reasonable and therefore excludable (CPL 30.30) on the factors presented in this case.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Grafton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 29, 1988
73 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Grafton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES C. GRAFTON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 29, 1988

Citations

73 N.Y.2d 779 (N.Y. 1988)
536 N.Y.S.2d 738
533 N.E.2d 668

Citing Cases

People v. Scott

As a matter of law, the People are entitled to a reasonable period to perfect their appeal. ( People v…

People v. Womack

We find this period to be an unreasonable period of appellate delay (see, CPL 30.30 [al; People v. Cortes, 80…