People v. Collado
| Decision Date | 22 December 1986 |
| Citation | 509 N.Y.S.2d 839,125 A.D.2d 584 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Benny COLLADO and Francisco Collado, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Kenneth Appelbaum, of counsel), for appellant.
John F. Clennan, Centereach, for respondents.
Before WEINSTEIN, J.P., and RUBIN, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Glass, J.), dated August 10, 1984, which granted the defendants' respective motions to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Criminal Term granted the defendants' respective motions to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds, on the basis that there were not sufficient excludable time periods for the People to come within the six-month rule of CPL 30.30(1)(a). In reaching this conclusion, the court charged the People with the time period from April 7, 1983, the date when the original proceedings were dismissed, to July 25, 1983, the date when the defendants were re-indicted for the same crime, a total of 109 days (see, People v. Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37, 436 N.Y.S.2d 213, 417 N.E.2d 507). The People contend that the court incorrectly charged this time period to them.
The defendants were charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree. They submitted certain documentation to the People that tended to substantiate their allegation that they had lawful possession of the property in question. In view of the purported exculpatory evidence, the People dismissed the charges. However, following an investigation into the matter, the People contended that the documentation was fraudulent. The defendants vigorously deny the People's allegations. Therefore, there is a disputed factual issue raised by the motion papers as to whether the defendants committed fraud. If, on remittitur, the court finds that the defendants engaged in fraud to induce the People to dismiss the criminal charges pending against them, the People should not be charged with the time necessary to conduct an investigation into the matter (see, CPL 30.30). Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine the factual issues presented on the speedy trial motions (see, CPL 210.45 People v. Gruden, 42 N.Y.2d 214, 397 N.Y.S.2d 704, 366 N.E.2d 794).
Additionally, we note that, as to the defendant Francisco Collado Criminal Term properly charged the People, as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brown
...17, 1990, is also excludable, even though the People conceded in the trial court that it was chargeable to them (see, People v. Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 509 N.Y.S.2d 839; People v. Gates, 70 A.D.2d 734, 416 N.Y.S.2d 870), because that adjournment was granted so the People could answer the d......
-
People v. Hueston
...to comply with its request for the minutes (see, People v. Lawson, 112 A.D.2d 457, 458, 491 N.Y.S.2d 197; cf., People v. Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 585, 509 N.Y.S.2d 839). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, People v. Missirian, 154 A.D.2d 625, 546 N.Y.S.2d 455; Peop......
-
People v. Langhorn
...to obtain Rosario material it was learned that the People had never ordered it from the stenographer. People v. Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 509 N.Y.S.2d 839 (2nd Dept.1986). Finally this case does not fall within that line of decisions attributing post-readiness delay in obtaining grand jury m......
-
People v. Hudson
...when he appeared without counsel, October 21 to November 13, 1987, was not chargeable to the People (CPL 30.30[4][f]; People v. Collado, 125 A.D.2d 584, 509 N.Y.S.2d 839). However, the period from November 13 to November 30, 1987 (17 days), when the case was adjourned to the trial part and ......