People v. Godbold

• Decision Date: 20 May 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03624,985 N.Y.S.2d 566,117 A.D.3d 565
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald GODBOLD, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 565
985 N.Y.S.2d 566
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03624

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Ronald GODBOLD, Defendant–Appellant.

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

May 20, 2014.

[985 N.Y.S.2d 567]

Pamela D. Hayes, New York, for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nicole Coviello of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., FRIEDMAN, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J. at pretrial motions; Lewis Bart Stone, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered July 30, 2009, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to concurrent terms of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to preclude, on the ground of lack of CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice, audio recordings containing statements by defendant. The statements were outside the scope of the statute, both because they were made as part of a criminal transaction, and also because they were made to persons who were not public servants ( see People v. Semidey, 254 A.D.2d 57, 680 N.Y.S.2d 478 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied92 N.Y.2d 985, 683 N.Y.S.2d 767, 706 N.E.2d 755 [1998] ).

After dismissing the indictment on the ground of legal insufficiency of the grand jury evidence, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in reinstating the indictment upon the People's submission of a portion of the grand jury minutes that had been inadvertently omitted from their original submission ( see People v. Contreras, 192 A.D.2d 417, 596 N.Y.S.2d 393 [1st Dept.1993], lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1071, 601 N.Y.S.2d 590, 619 N.E.2d 668 [1993] ). The court had inherent authority to reinstate the indictment ( see People v. Frederick, 14 N.Y.3d 913, 916–917, 905 N.Y.S.2d 533, 931 N.E.2d 517 [2010] ), and defendant's claim that the indictment was unlawfully amended is

[985 N.Y.S.2d 568]

without merit, because the text of the indictment remained unchanged. Although defendant asserts that nothing in the CPLR is relevant to the court's action, he inconsistently asserts that the People exceeded the 30–day time limit for reargument motions set forth in CPLR 2221(d). In any event, that time limit would be inapplicable because the People's motion was essentially for renewal rather than reargument, and the court had discretion to entertain it ( see e.g. Framapac Delicatessen...