People v. Herlich, 2022-50398

CourtNew York District Court
Writing for the CourtBERNARD C. CHENG, J.
PartiesThe People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Holly Herlich, Defendant.
Docket Number2022-50398,CR-023868-21SU
Decision Date28 April 2022

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,

Holly Herlich, Defendant.

No. 2022-50398

Docket No. CR-023868-21SU

District Court of Suffolk County, First District

April 28, 2022

Unpublished Opinion

Raymond A. Tierney District Attorney of Suffolk County Gavin O'Brien / Of Counsel District Court Bureau

Attorney for Defendant Christina Concetta Ford, Esq Legal Aid Society, Suffolk County


On September 4, 2021, the defendant was charged with four offenses under the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law ("VTL") law: violations of (1) section 1192(1) [Driving While Ability Impaired-Alcohol-with Two or More Prior Offenses Under 1192 within the Preceding Ten Years], an unclassified misdemeanor; (2) section 1198(9)(d) [Circumventing an Interlock Device], a class A misdemeanor; (3) section 511(2)(a)(1) [Aggravated Unlicensed Operation Motor Vehicle-Second Degree], an unclassified misdemeanor, and (4) section 509(1) [Motor Vehicle License Violation: No License], an infraction. The defendant was arraigned on September 14, 2021. By motion dated January 13, 2022, defendant moves this Court for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL section 30.30, and striking the Certificate of Compliance/statement of readiness [hereinafter "CoC"] pursuant to CPL sections 245.20 and 245.50.

The gravamen of the defendant's motion to dismiss is that the People (1) failed to file any CoC/statement of readiness with the Court (Def.'s Aff. at ¶¶ 20-32); (2) failed to produce statutorily-required automatic disclosures (Def.'s Aff. at ¶¶ 57-69); and (3) filed accusatory instruments that are legally insufficient (Def.'s Aff. at ¶¶ 33-56).

On March 24, 2022, this Court issued a preliminary order in which it ordered the People to provide the Court with a copy of the minutes from the September 4, 2021 arraignment. The People filed a copy of the requested minutes on April 14, 2022. This Court now addresses the parties' arguments.

A. Failure to File a CoC

On January 1, 2020, new legislation affecting both CPL § 30.30 and CPL § 245.50 went into effect. The new law required the People to file a CoC with the court prior to announcing readiness under CPL § 30.30 (see CPL § 245.50[3]). In order for the People to be ready for trial, the People must: "(1) file a certificate of good faith discovery compliance; (2) file a valid statement of readiness; and (3) certify the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument." (People v Ramirez-Correa, Docket CR-018674-20QN [Crim Ct, Queens Cnty 2021]).

Pursuant to CPL § 30.30(1)(b), the People were required to make an effective statement of their readiness for trial within 90 days of the commencement date of the within criminal actions, taking into account all excludable time periods. The ultimate burden of proving that certain time periods should be excluded falls upon the People. (See People v Berkowitz, 50 N.Y.2d 333 [1980]).

Here, the People contend they filed a CoC on September 24, 2021, and a supplemental CoC on October 4, 2021, thus only the twenty-day delay from September 4, 2021 until September 24, 2021 is chargeable to them. [1] (See People's Aff. at ¶ 8, Exs. B & D). Notably, however, this Court's file contains no CoC at all filed by the People in this case. [2] The non-filing...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT