People v. Conrad
| Decision Date | 02 December 1976 |
| Citation | 405 N.Y.S.2d 559,93 Misc.2d 655 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Charles CONRAD, Respondent. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty., Stephen M. Brent, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellant.
Dan M. Walters, Rochester, for respondent.
DECISION and ORDER
The issue presented on this appeal is whether the Trial Court's negligence in scheduling a jury trial is a basis to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to grant defendant a speedy trial under C.P.L. 30.30.
C.P.L. 30.30(1) explicitly states that a motion to dismiss "must be granted where the people are not ready for trial . . . " The negligence of the trial court can not be imputed to the people or prosecutor. The trial court is not "the people" referred to in the statute.
The clear legislative intent in C.P.L. 30.30 was to compel the prosecutor to prepare to try his cases within the six (6) month time frame. To accept the trial court's misinterpretation of C.P.L. 30.30 would do violence to the intent of that statute.
The Sturgis case 38 N.Y.2d 625, 381 N.Y.S.2d 860, 345 N.E.2d 331 cited by defendant is distinguishable from the instant case, in that Sturgis clearly dealt with the people's backlog of cases, and exclusionary periods and did not involve negligence of the trial court.
The Henrietta Town Court's Order of Dismissal is reversed and the case remanded for trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Walton
...indictment and arraignment. In People v. Conrad, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 864, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d 220 [1978], affg. on opn. below 93 Misc.2d 655, 655-56 [Monroe Co.Ct.1976], the Court of Appeals held that CPL 30.30 was not violated when the People were prevented from timely answering ready ......
-
People v. Lehrer
...defendant's arraignment, the trial court retained all of the papers before submitting them to the District Attorney); People v. Conrad, 93 Misc.2d 655, 405 N.Y.S.2d 559 (Monroe Co. 1976), aff'd, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d 220 (1978) (failure of the trial court to schedule a......
-
People v. Smith
...alone and the delay cannot be imputed to the People (People v. Conrad, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d 220, affg. 93 Misc.2d 655, 405 N.Y.S.2d 559; People v. Blyden, 79 A.D.2d 192, 197, 436 N.Y.S.2d 492). Moreover, it is clear that this three-day period had a bearing upon the Pe......
-
People v. Brian J. P.
...In opposing the motion the People cite two cases. The first is People v. DeRosa, mentioned above. Second is People v. Conrad, 93 Misc.2d 655, 405 N.Y.S.2d 559, aff'd on the opinion of the court below, 44 N.Y.2d 863, 407 N.Y.S.2d 694, 379 N.E.2d In DeRosa, the date of arraignment was July 3,......