People v. Headley

• Decision Date: 14 November 2012
• Citation: 100 A.D.3d 775,954 N.Y.S.2d 121,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07692
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Jason HEADLEY, respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

100 A.D.3d 775
954 N.Y.S.2d 121
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07692

The PEOPLE, etc., appellant,
v.
Jason HEADLEY, respondent.

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

Nov. 14, 2012.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for appellant.

Warren Silverman, Bayside, N.Y. (Patrick Michael Megaro and John S. Campo of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

[100 A.D.3d 775]Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), dated March 25, 2011, which granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed.

On January 1, 2008, the defendant, allegedly acting in concert with the codefendant, Tasha Parker, committed, inter alia, an assault. A felony complaint was apparently filed against the defendant on January 5, 2008, the day he was arraigned. On or about March 22, 2010, the defendant moved pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss

[954 N.Y.S.2d 122]

the indictment. The Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), denied the motion, determining that the defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial, as the People were only chargeable with a total of 147 days. Thereafter, following more delays, the defendant again moved pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(a) to dismiss the indictment. The Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), determined that the People failed to bring the defendant to trial within six months, and granted the defendant's motion.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's second motion to dismiss the indictment was timely, as it was made prior to the commencement of trial ( seeCPL 1.20[11]; People v. Ford, 17 A.D.3d 143, 143–144, 792 N.Y.S.2d 78;People v. Rodriguez, 45 A.D.2d 41, 42, 356 N.Y.S.2d 60). The People's contention that the defendant failed to provide reasonable notice was waived, as they failed to raise this procedural issue before the Supreme Court ( see People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 113, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079;People v. Brown, 207 A.D.2d 556, 557–558, 616 N.Y.S.2d 389). Contrary to the People's contention, they did not raise the notice issue by raising the timeliness issue, as these requirements are different ( see People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d at 113, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079).

In felony cases, the People are required to be ready for trial...