People ex rel. Labrew v. Vance

• Decision Date: 30 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 2020-02772,Ind. No. 02744/19,13456-13456A,Index No. 451228/20
• Citation: 141 N.Y.S.3d 308 (Mem),192 A.D.3d 645
• Parties: In the Matter of PEOPLE EX REL. Lawrence P. LABREW, on behalf of Marvin Hayes, Petitioner–Appellant, v. New York County District Attorney Cyrus VANCE, Jr., BY Assistant District Attorney Lauren BREEN, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 645

141 N.Y.S.3d 308 (Mem)

In the Matter of PEOPLE EX REL. Lawrence P. LABREW, on behalf of Marvin Hayes, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.New York County District Attorney Cyrus VANCE, Jr., BY Assistant District Attorney Lauren BREEN, et al., Respondents–Respondents.

13456-13456A

Ind. No. 02744/19

Index No. 451228/20

Case No. 2020-02772

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED March 30, 2021

Law Office of Lawrence LaBrew, New York (Lawrence P. LaBrew of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Lauren Breen of counsel), for respondents.

Gische, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.

Judgment (denominated an order), Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on or about May 6, 2020, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court (Ellen N. Biben, J.), entered on or about March 17, 2020, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Petitioner claims that he is entitled to immediate release on bail, or on his own recognizance, pursuant to CPL 30.30(2)(a), on the ground that the People were allegedly not ready for trial within 90 days. However, petitioner's failure to submit records relevant to the contested periods that he claims were chargeable to the People precludes appellate review (see e.g. People v. Kramer, 181 A.D.2d 449, 449–50, 581 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept. 1992], lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 949, 583 N.Y.S.2d 203, 592 N.E.2d 811 [1992] ).

Alternatively, insofar as petitioner's arguments are reviewable, we find that his habeas petition was properly denied. The court properly excluded the 36–day "period after the decision on the omnibus motion as a reasonable period of delay resulting from motion practice, since the People were entitled to a reasonable time to prepare for the suppression hearings ordered therein" ( People v. Moolenaar, 262 A.D.2d 60, 60, 694 N.Y.S.2d 348 [1st Dept. 1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 826, 702 N.Y.S.2d 597, 724 N.E.2d 389 [1999] [citation omitted]). As for the subsequent periods at issue, the People complied with their obligations under recently enacted CPL 245.50, and petitioner failed to establish that the People's off-calendar certificate of readiness was invalid (see People v. Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392, 399–400, 407, 45 N.Y.S.3d 320, 68 N.E.3d 45 [2016] ). Furthermore, regardless of whether the People declared their readiness, the adjournments of February 4...