People v. Piney, 2021-21221

CourtNew York Justice Court
Writing for the CourtDAVID A. SEARS, J.
PartiesPeople of the State of New York, v. Kyle R. Piney, Defendant.
Decision Date16 August 2021
Docket Number2021-21221

People of the State of New York,

Kyle R. Piney, Defendant.

No. 2021-21221

Justice Court of the Town of Pleasant Valley, Dutchess County

August 16, 2021


Assistant Public Defender

Attorney for Plaintiff


Senior Assistant District Attorney


The Defendant, by motion, seeks an Order granting Continued Discovery, dismissal of the accusatory instrument for Facial Insufficiency, dismissal based on the grounds that the Defendant was denied the right to a speedy trial, a reservation of the right to a Suppression Hearing, a Huntley Hearing, disclosure of Brady Material, a Sandoval/Ventimiglia Hearing, and leave to file additional motions. The Defendant, Kyle R. Piney, was charged by misdemeanor Information with having committed the offense of Assault in the Third Degree in violation of Penal Law §120.00. Also filed with the Information was a Supporting Deposition signed by Jason Russell.

It is alleged that this offense occurred on August 22, 2020 in the Town of Pleasant Valley, County of Dutchess, State of New York. The Defendant was arraigned on September 22, 2020 with the Public Defender present at arraignment.


The People have indicated all discovery material has already been provided to the Defendant's attorney. A Certificate of Compliance was filed by the People on October 11, 2020 and July 16, 2021. Furthermore, the People are aware of their continuing obligations with regard to discovery. It is directed that they continue to comply with their continuing obligations to provide the defense attorney with any discoverable information in their possession.


An Information is facially sufficient when a factual portion of the instrument, together with any supporting depositions, 1) alleges non-hearsay facts that would give the Court reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the offense, and 2) establish, if true, every element of that offense. See, CPL §100.40(1).

"Reasonable cause to believe that a person has committed an offense exists when evidence or information, which appears reliable, discloses facts or circumstances which are collectively of such weight and persuasiveness, has to convince a person of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience, that it is reasonably likely that such offense was committed and that such person committed it". CPL §710.10(2). The Defendant contends that the factual allegations set forth in the Information failed to establish every element of Assault in the Third Degree. Penal Law §120.00(1) provides that a) a person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree when... with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person". Physical injury is defined as "impairment of physical condition" or "substantial pain". Penal Law §10.00(9).

The Information, together with the Supporting Deposition, allege that the victim was punched by the Defendant several times, then pushed down several stairs, causing the victim to hit his head on the ground, causing two lacerations that required medical attention. Further, it was alleged the Defendant began to punch the victim an unknown number of times and pushed the victim down the stairs. When the victim got up, he was bleeding from his face. The victim only refused to go to the hospital because he was concerned about the corona virus. This information is contained in the Supporting Deposition.

Taken together, this Court finds that the Information is facially sufficient to support the charge of Assault in the Third Degree. Termination of an assault charge at this juncture, would deprive the People of the opportunity at trial to detail the nature and extent of the injury by introducing medical evidence or other relevant proof that the victim suffered impairment of a physical condition or substantial pain. Accordingly, this Court will not dismiss the accusatory instrument as insufficient.


The Defendant seeks a dismissal on the ground his "speedy trial" rights were violated. The Defendant claims the People's Statement of Readiness filed on October 11, 2020 was invalid. It is claimed the Statement is invalid because it lacks the certification required by CPL §30.30(5-a).

The Court makes the following findings of fact concerning appearances before the Court in this case:

The Defendant was arraigned on September 22, 2020 and the Public Defender was present for the sole purpose of representing the Defendant at arraignment. The Defendant was not remanded or in custody, but released on his recognizance. Upon completion of the arraignment, the matter was adjourned for Defendant to obtain an attorney and scheduled for October 27, 2020. On October 11, 2020, a Certificate of Compliance was filed with the Court, including the People's Statement of Readiness. The Statement of...

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