From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Missirian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1989
154 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

October 23, 1989

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record we find that defendant was not denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. After subtracting the periods of delay directly resulting from the defendant's unavailability due to his detention in Connecticut (CPL 30.30 [e]); the delay directly resulting from the defendant's pretrial motions (CPL 30.30 [a]; People v Worley, 66 N.Y.2d 523, 527; People v Brown, 113 A.D.2d 812); the delays from adjournments at the defendant's request (CPL 30.30 [b]; People v Brown, supra); and the delays to which the defendant consented by failing to object (CPL 30.30 [b]; People v Pappas, 128 A.D.2d 556; People v Seabrook, 126 A.D.2d 583; People v Gaggi, 104 A.D.2d 422, appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 636); the total time chargeable to the People is within the permitted six calendar months (see, e.g., People v Jones, 105 A.D.2d 179, 188, affd 66 N.Y.2d 529, 540). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 was properly denied.

We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Missirian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 23, 1989
154 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Missirian

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN MISSIRIAN…

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

Date published: Oct 23, 1989

Citations

154 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
546 N.Y.S.2d 455

Citing Cases

State v. Newman

The People's declaration of readiness for trial at the defendant's arraignment was not vitiated or rendered…

People v. Rosario

The 95-day period is excludable for a second reason. It is well settled that when an indictment replaces an…