Opinion
No. 2021-554 Q CR
09-08-2023
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Peter Ramrattan, Respondent.
Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill, John M. Castellano and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel), for appellant. James Shalley, for respondent (no brief filed).
Unpublished Opinion
Queens County District Attorney (Johnnette Traill, John M. Castellano and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel), for appellant.
James Shalley, for respondent (no brief filed).
PRESENT:: WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, LISA S. OTTLEY, JJ
Appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Mary L. Bejarano, J.), dated July 20, 2021. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, on December 4, 2018, defendant was charged in an accusatory instrument with assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) and harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]). On January 17, 2019, the People filed off-calendar a supporting deposition and a statement of readiness (SoR). By notice of motion dated May 15, 2019, defendant moved to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument charging defendant with assault in the third degree as facially insufficient. The People opposed. The Criminal Court denied the motion by order dated July 17, 2019. On November 26, 2019, retained counsel was relieved and defense counsel from the 18-B panel was assigned, and the matter was adjourned to January 14, 2020. On January 14th, the People answered not ready and the matter was adjourned to March 5, 2020 for the People to file a certificate of compliance (CoC) (see CPL 245.50 [1]). On January 28, 2020, the People filed off-calendar a CoC and an SoR that did not include a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification of the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument. On March 5, 2020, the matter was adjourned to April 23, 2020. Due to the COVID-1 9 pandemic, the matter was not called on April 23rd and was administratively adjourned until February 9, 2021. In the interim, statutory speedy trial time was tolled from March 20 until October 4, 2020 pursuant to executive orders from the Governor's office in response to the pandemic (see Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.8 [9 NYCRR 8.202.8]; Executive Order [A. Cuomo] No. 202.67 [9 NYCRR 8.202.67]). On February 9, 2021, the matter was adjourned to March 30, 2021; on that date, the matter was adjourned to May 25, 2021.
By notice of motion dated May 23, 2021, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds, arguing, among other things, that the People's January 28, 2020 SoR was invalid because it lacked the CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. The People opposed, asserting, among other things, that the People did not need to file a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification because the Criminal Court had confirmed the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument in its July 17, 2019 order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of assault in the third degree on facial insufficiency grounds. In an order dated July 20, 2021, the Criminal Court (Mary L. Bejarano, J.) granted defendant's motion after finding 399 chargeable days, consisting of the 44-day period from December 4, 2018 to January 17, 2019, the six-day period from March 28 to April 3, 2019, the one-day period from September 18 to 19, 2019, the 49-day period from November 26, 2019 to January 14, 2020, the 51-day period from January 14 to March 5, 2020, the 15-day period from March 5 to 20, 2020, the 128-day period from October 4, 2020 to February 9, 2021, the 49-day period from February 9 to March 30, 2021, and the 56-day period from March 30 to May 25, 2021.
Since the most serious offense charged in the accusatory instrument is a class A misdemeanor, the People were required to be ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the action (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]; see also People v Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 356 [1980]). The People concede that they are chargeable with 65 days, consisting of the 44-day period from December 4, 2018 to January 17, 2019, the six-day period from March 28 to April 3, 2019, the one-day period from September 18 to 19, 2019, and the 14-day period from January 14 to 28, 2020. With respect to the periods that the People contest, we find, for the reasons stated in People v Ward (79 Misc.3d 129 [A], 2023 NY Slip Op 50688[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2023]), that the People's January 28, 2020 SoR did not stop the speedy trial clock. We reject the People's contention that the Criminal Court's July 17, 2019 order denying defendant's motion to dismiss one of the charges in the accusatory instrument on facial insufficiency grounds obviated the need for the People to file a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. As the People did not file a 5-a certification before the expiration of their statutory speedy trial time, the Criminal Court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds (see generally People v King, 216 A.D.3d 1400 [4th Dept 2023]; People v Brown, 214 A.D.3d 823 [2d Dept 2023]; cf. People v Robbins, 206 A.D.3d 1069 [3d Dept 2022]).
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.