Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed.
In granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds, the Supreme Court found that 196 days were chargeable to the People. Included within the total of 196 days charged to the People were the last 22 days (i.e., Mar. 8, 1989, through Mar. 30, 1989) of a 36-day period between the defendant's indictment and arraignment on that indictment (i.e., Feb. 22, 1989, through Mar. 30, 1989). This court disagreed with the Supreme Court's determination and excluded the 22 days on the ground that "`the court clerk, pursuant to the practice in Queens County scheduled [the defendant's] arraignment on the indictment'" (People v. Palacios, 173 A.D.2d 745, 745-746, supra, quoting People v. Lopez, 149 A.D.2d 735). In reversing this court's order determining this issue, the Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the facts of this case were indistinguishable from those of People v. Correa ( 77 N.Y.2d 930) and were "controlled by it" (People v. Palacios, 79 N.Y.2d 897, 899, supra). In People v. Correa (supra, at 931), the Court of Appeals held that "[d]elays between indictment and arraignment * * * do not prevent the People from being ready for trial. Such delays are, therefore, not excludable under CPL 30.30". Under the holding of People v Correa, it is clear that the first 14 days (i.e., Feb. 22, 1989, through Mar. 7, 1989) of the 36-day period between the defendant's indictment and arraignment on that indictment should have also been charged to the People, bringing the total number of days chargeable to the People to 210 days, which exceeds the allowable six-calendar-month statutory limitation (in this case, 181 days), by 29 days. Accordingly, we need not address the People's alternate argument raised on their prior appeal to this court, i.e., that the Supreme Court improperly charged to the People an additional 21-day period (i.e., Dec. 14, 1989, through Jan. 3, 1990). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.