From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Osgood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1981
80 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

February 17, 1981


Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 1, 1978, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that the People were not ready for trial within six months of the commencement of this action as required by CPL 30.30 (subd 1, par [a]). By order dated September 28, 1979 this court reversed the order, on the law, and denied the motion to dismiss the indictment (People v Osgood, 71 A.D.2d 1030). On December 22, 1980, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court and remitted the case to this court "for review of the facts, if any" ( 52 N.Y.2d 37, 46). Order affirmed. The six-month period within which the People are required to be ready for trial under CPL 30.30 (subd 1, par [a]) is to be measured from the date of filing of the felony complaint, and not from the date of filing of the indictment, even when, as here, the complaint was dismissed (see People v Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37, supra). Using that date as a point of reference, it is undisputed, on this record, that the People were chargeable for a time period in excess of six months and, accordingly, Criminal Term correctly dismissed the indictment. Mollen, P.J., Hopkins, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Osgood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1981
80 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

People v. Osgood

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. RUBY OSGOOD, Respondent

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1981

Citations

80 A.D.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

It is only when an amended complaint or superseding information sets forth a new criminal transaction that…