People v. Bernstein

• Court: New York County Court
• Writing for the Court: JOSEPH JIUDICE
• Citation: People v. Bernstein, 74 Misc.2d 714, 344 N.Y.S.2d 786 (N.Y. Cty. Ct. 1973)
• Decision Date: 11 June 1973
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Herman BERNSTEIN, Defendant.

Page 786

344 N.Y.S.2d 786

74 Misc.2d 714

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiffs, v. Herman BERNSTEIN, Defendant.

Dutchess County Court.

June 11, 1973.

William J. Ciolko, Poughkeepsie, for defendant.

Albert M. Rosenblatt, Poughkeepsie (Gerald V. Hayes, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.

JOSEPH JIUDICE, Judge.

This is a petition by the above named defendant to dismiss the indictment on the ground the defendant's rights under the Uniform Detainers Agreement (Criminal Procedure Law, Art. 530) have been violated.

The petitioner is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Connecticut. He had been arrested in June, 1970, was indicted in December, 1971, by the Dutchess County Grand Jury. In August of 1972 while the petitioner was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution, this Court dismissed the first indictment with leave to submit the matter to another Grand Jury. The defendant was again indicted on November 10, 1972 for the same charges and during December, 1972, the petitioner was brought to this Court for the purpose of arraignment. He was thereafter returned to the federal authorities in Danbury. The defendant's contention is that he should have been tried at the time he was brought to Dutchess County Court in December, 1972, and that the failure to try the indictment is grounds for dismissal under § 580.20, Article IV, subdivision (e) of the Criminal Procedure Law.

The Court has read the entire record in this matter and determines the defendant was brought here in December of 1972 to be arraigned on the second indictment. At the time, through his attorney, the matter was adjourned for the purpose of allowing the defendant to make certain motions to the indictment. Motions were made in December, 1972, on behalf of this defendant. Therefore, at the time, he was not ready for trial as he now claims.

This Court believes...