People v. Camillo

• Decision Date: 16 January 2001
• Citation: 719 N.Y.S.2d 239,279 AD2d 326
• Parties: (A.D. 1 Dept. 2001) The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose CAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant. 2942-2942A : FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 239

719 N.Y.S.2d 239 (A.D. 1 Dept. 2001)

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jose CAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

2942-2942A

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

January 16, 2001

Mary B. McGarvey-DePuy, for Respondent,

Timothy K. Beeken, for Defendant-Appellant.

Rosenberger, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Rubin, Saxe, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J. on speedy trial motion; Joseph Fisch, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 25, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3½ to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, and judgment, same court (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered November 8, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 4½ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The certificates of readiness filed by the People after answering not ready on certain occasions tolled the speedy trial clock from running for the remainder of the adjournment periods and the good faith of such certificates was not negated by the People's unreadiness at the subsequent calendar calls (People v Douglas, 264 A.D.2d 671, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 862, see also, People v Stirrup, 91 N.Y.2d 434, 440; People v Acosta, 249 A.D.2d 161, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 892). The fact that the court granted longer adjournments than requested by the People did not require such time to be charged to the People (see People v Rivera, 223 A.D.2d 476, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 852). The record supports the court's conclusion that the prosecutor's notices of readiness were not illusory (see, People v Kendzia, 64 N.Y.2d 331). The People are not required to contact their witnesses on every adjourned date (People v Robinson, 171 A.D.2d 475, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 973), nor do they have to be able to produce their witnesses instantaneously in order for a statement of readiness to be valid (see People v Dushain, 247 A.D.2d 234, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1007).

Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.