From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lindsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1998
248 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

March 30, 1998

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


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, and the indictment is reinstated.

The defendant was charged with, inter alia, assault in the first degree for having slashed a woman's face with a box-cutter. Following the denial of the defendant's Wade motion, the People announced that they were not ready to proceed to trial. The court, sua sponte, adjourned the case for six months. Prior to the expiration of the six-month period, the People moved to advance the case on the calendar. This motion was denied. In granting the defendant's speedy trial motion, the court charged the entire period from the denial of the People's motion to the original adjourn date to the People. This was error.

Although a sua sponte adjournment without a request by or the consent of the defendant is normally chargeable to the People ( see, CPL 30.30 [b]; People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613), the lengthy adjournment here was patently unreasonable. Although the People did not request a specific adjourn date, the record shows that the complainant, who knew and identified the defendant as her assailant, was available and the People were simply waiting for another witness to return from vacation. Clearly, the People would not have requested or required a six-month adjournment to obtain this witness's testimony.

Moreover, contrary to the Supreme Court's reasoning, the People are not required to affirmatively prove that they are in fact ready for trial when they make that announcement ( see, People v. Wilson, 86 N.Y.2d 753; People v. Caussade, 162 A.D.2d 4). Here, the prosecutor's affirmation stating that the People were now ready to proceed and the People's statement of readiness, submitted in support of the motion to advance, were sufficient to indicate the People's readiness. The court's refusal to advance the case had no bearing on the People's readiness to proceed ( see, People v. Chang, 176 A.D.2d 951).

Subtracting the time period from the denial of the People's motion to the original adjourn date from the time charged to the People brings the total chargeable time to less than the statutory six-month period ( see, CPL 30.30 [a]).

Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lindsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 1998
248 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Lindsey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. MARCUS LINDSEY…

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

Date published: Mar 30, 1998

Citations

248 A.D.2d 729 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 865

Citing Cases

People v. Teachey

That original Anderson decision would have overruled Sykes.Stirrup (supra) pulled back that broad extension…

People v. Teachey

Reid, in fact, explicitly distinguished its particular circumstances from the general rule of People ex rel.…