People v. Lobato

Decision Date30 January 2020
Docket NumberCR-015493-19KN
Citation66 Misc.3d 1230 (A),122 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Table)
Parties The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Tyshawn LOBATO, Defendant.
CourtNew York Criminal Court

The Legal Aid Society, Sara Devita for the defendant

Kings County District Attorney's Office, Naphtalie Azor for the People

Elizabeth N. Warin, J.

Defendant is charged with Menacing in the Second Degree in violation of PL § 120.14 [1]; Menacing in the Third Degree in violation of PL § 120.15; Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree in violation of PL 215.50 [3]; Endangering the Welfare of a Child in violation of PL 260.10, and Harassment in the Second Degree in violation of 240.26 [1]. By motion filed on January 3, 2020, defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL § 30.30. On January 15, 2020, the People filed a response, and on January 24, 2020, the defendant filed a reply. For the following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining charges pursuant to CPL § 30.30 is GRANTED.

I. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPL § 30.30

A. Applicable Standards

Where, as here, the top count charged on the information is an A misdemeanor, the People are required to be ready for trial within ninety days, less any excludable time ( CPL § 30.30 [1] [b] ). The ninety-day period commences with the filing of the accusatory instrument (see CPL § 1.20 [17] ); People v Stirrup , 91 NY2d 434, 438 [1998] ). The day on which the accusatory instrument is filed is excluded (see People v Stiles , 70 NY2d 765 [1987] ).

Before answering ready for trial, the People must have "done all that is required of them to bring the case to a point where it may be tried" ( People v England , 84 NY2d 1, 4 [1994] ). Readiness for trial encompasses two elements. First, the People must "answer ready" by either communicating their readiness in open court or by filing a certificate of actual readiness with the court and serving a copy on the defendant's attorney (see People v Brown , 28 NY3d 392, 403 [2016] ; People v Kendzia , 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985] ). Second, "the People must in fact be ready to proceed at the time they declare readiness" (id. ; see also People v Chavis , 91 NY2d 500, 505 [1998] ).

Generally, once a statement of readiness is filed, the People are only charged for adjournments when the delay is solely and exclusively the fault of the prosecution, and the time cannot otherwise be excluded under Section 30.30[4] (see Brown at 404; People v Cortes , 80 NY2d 201, 210 [1992] ). Otherwise, post-readiness the People are charged with the amount of time they request on the record ( People v Bruno , 300 AD2d 93, 95 [1st Dept 2002] ).

The People bear the burden of establishing that the statement of readiness is valid and that the People are actually ready to proceed with trial at the time they announce ready (Kendzia at 339). While the People are only charged with the amount of time they request on the record after a statement of readiness, unless the time is otherwise excludable under CPL § 30.30[4] (see Brown , at 404), an "illusory" statement of readiness is insufficient to stop the speedy trial clock ( England , 84 NY2d at 4 ). If the court finds a prior statement of readiness was illusory, the court "should calculate any delay chargeable to the People as required by statute as if the illusory statement of readiness was never made" (Brown at 406; see also CPL § 30.30[5] ).

On January 1, 2020, new discovery and speedy trial laws went into effect, replacing CPL Articles 30 and 240. Article 245 delineates the People's discovery obligation and further sets out a statutory time frame for the completion of certain discovery ( CPL §§ 245.20 ; 245.10).1 Pursuant to the timing provisions set forth in CPL § 245.10, the People must comply with their discovery obligations without any demand from the defense, unless the defense waives discovery under CPL § 245.75.

Of particular relevance here, the newly enacted provision of CPL § 245.50 requires that the People comply with the discovery obligations enumerated in section 245.20 as a precondition to a valid statement of readiness. Once initial discovery is fulfilled, the People must affirm their compliance by filing a "certificate of compliance" on the defense and the court (see CPL § 245.50 [1] ). Subdivision three of section 245.50, entitled "Trial Readiness," states that "absent an individualized finding of exceptional circumstances by the court before which the charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate [of compliance]"(CPL § 254.50 [3]). CPL § 30.30 was also amended to incorporate this change, and now states that "any statement of trial readiness must be accompanied or preceded by a certification of good faith compliance with the disclosure requirements of section 245.20" ( CPL § 30.30 [5] ). Once the certificate of compliance is filed by the prosecution, the defense is entitled to contest its validity on the record (id. ). Furthermore, once the People answer ready, the court is required to conduct an immediate inquiry into the People's actual readiness, and if not convinced the People are ready, the statement of readiness is deemed invalid for speedy trial purposes ( CPL § 30.30 [5] ).

B. Facts of the Instant Case

The parties do not dispute that as of December 13, 2019, the People had accrued 89 days of chargeable time under the applicable statutes and laws in effect at the time. Because the chronology of the case is relevant to the disputed issue, a brief synopsis of the timeline is provided here.

On April 20, 2019, the defendant was arraigned, and the case was adjourned for conversion to June 4, 2019, and then again to July 29, 2019, as the People were not ready.

On July 8, 2019, the People filed an off-calendar superseding information alongside two supporting depositions and a statement of readiness. On the following court date of July 29, 2019, the information was deemed converted and the People announced ready in court. The case was adjourned for discovery, which was partially filed on the next court date of September 5, 2019. The case was then adjourned to October 16, 2019, for hearing and trial.

On October 16, 2019, the People announced not ready, stating that the complainant was unavailable, and requested 6 days. Defense counsel filed and served a notice of outstanding discovery, listing, 911 call(s), radio runs, a scratch complaint report and video surveillance of the alleged incident, among other items (see Def.'s Brief, Exhibit A). In their response papers, the People assert that when they requested six days for trial they believed that the 911 call(s) would be available for disclosure within that time frame (see People's Brief, p 3). The case was adjourned to November 12, 2019 for trial.

On the next court date, the People answered not ready because the complainant was unavailable and requested three days. No additional discovery was filed. The defense counsel reiterated her request for the outstanding discovery materials in open court on November 12th, December 12th and January 7th.2 The matter was adjourned to December 12, 2019, when the People were not ready because the arresting officer was unavailable and requested one day. The defense counsel reiterated her request for the outstanding discovery materials. The transcript for the calendar call on December 12th shows that the court offered to calendar the case for the following day in accordance with the People's request. When defense counsel announced her unavailability for the next day of December 13, the court endeavored to select a trial date during the following week. At that point, defense counsel requested an adjournment into January, citing the toll of numerous court appearances on Mr. Lobato. The case was then adjourned to January 7, 2020 for trial.

On January 3, 2020, the defendant filed the instant motion, claiming, inter alia, that the time period from January 1, 2020 to January 3, 2020, is chargeable to the People due to their non-compliance with discovery under CPL §§ 245.20 and 245.50. Specifically, the defendant argues that as of the effective date of these new laws, the People were restored to a pre-readiness posture due to their failure to comply with the discovery requirements or to file a certificate of compliance. The defendant argues that the speedy trial clock restarted on January 1st when the People had 89 days charged, rendering them beyond their 90-day window on the day the motion was filed three days later on January 3, 2020.

The People counter that the adjournment from December 12, 2019 to January 7, 2020 exceeded their request for one day and was the product of "court congestion" thereby tolling their discovery obligations under CPL § 245.20, 245.50 [3] until the January 7, 2020 appearance date (People's Brief, p. 9). The People contend that that period of delay was not attributable to the People, and further that their statement of readiness previously filed on July 8, 2019 effectively kept them in post-readiness status until January 7, 2020, notwithstanding their failure to file a certificate of compliance.

On January 7, 2020, the People again did not have a certificate of compliance to file with the Court.3 The Court set a schedule for the instant motion and adjourned for decision as well as hearing and trial.

C. Conclusions of Law

As a threshold matter, the Court notes that the new legislation described under articles 30 and 245 of the CPL went into effect on January 1, 2020. The statutes establish a new procedural framework for discovery compliance and trial readiness, and therefore, apply to all pending proceedings as of their effective date (see McKinney's Consolidated Laws of NY § 55 ; Wade v. Byung Yang Kim , 250 AD2d 323 [2nd Dept. 1998] ). Uniform application of the law to both pending and new matters is constitutionally required by the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of both...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...(Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2020) ; People v. DeMilio , 66 Misc. 3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020) ; People v. Lobato , 66 Misc. 3d 1230(A), 122 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) CPL § 245.20(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of the items the People must disclose. This l......
  • People v. Pennant
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ... ... CPL §§ 245.10 and 245.20(1)(a-u). See : ... People v. Villamar , 69 Misc.3d 842, 132 N.Y.S.3d ... 593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020); People v. DeMilio , 66 ... Misc.3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020); ... People v. Lobato , 66 Misc.3d 1230 (A), 122 N.Y.S.3d ... 492 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) ... CPL ... § 245.20(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of the items ... the People must disclose. This list is not to be interpreted ... narrowly, as CPL § 245.20(7) mandates, "There ... ...
  • People v. Salters
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • August 20, 2021
    ...593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020) ; People v. DeMilio , 66 Misc 3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020) ; People v. Lobato , 66 Misc 3d 1230(A), 122 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020) CPL § 245.20(1) provides a non-exhaustive list of the items the People must disclose. Among......
  • People v. Herrera
    • United States
    • New York District Court
    • April 5, 2021
    ...593, (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020) ; People v. DeMilio , 66 Misc 3d 759, 117 N.Y.S.3d 830 (County Ct. Dutchess Co. 2020) ; People v. Lobato , 66 Misc 3d 1230(A), 122 N.Y.S.3d 492 (Crim. Ct. Kings Co. 2020)As indicated hereinabove, CPL 245.20(1)(k)(iv) specifically mandates the disclosure of, "All......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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