People v. Rambally
| Decision Date | 17 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CR-017383-19NA |
| Citation | 68 Misc.3d 1212 (A),130 N.Y.S.3d 261 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kevin RAMBALLY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
Madeline Singas, Nassau County District Attorney
Attorney for Defendant: Cassar Law Firm
Papers Submitted:
Notice of Motion 1
Affirmation in Support 2
Affirmation in Opposition 3
On July 30, 2019, the Defendant was arraigned on the charges of driving while intoxicated per se , common law driving while intoxicated, operating at an unreasonable and imprudent speed and following too closely, in violation of VTL §§ 1192(2), 1192(3), 1180(a) and 1129(a), respectively. At the time of the arraignment the People, on the record, declared their readiness for trial. The Defendant neither contests the fact of this declaration nor the sufficiency thereof.
On December 17, 2019, pursuant to a prior stipulation of the parties, the matter appeared on the court's calendar for a suppression hearing. At that time, the People indicated that they were not ready to proceed with the hearing and requested an adjournment of two (2) weeks. The matter was adjourned to February 7, 2020, for hearing.
On February 7, 2020 the matter again appeared on the court's calendar for hearing. Once again, the People were not ready to proceed with the hearing. They did not request any particular adjourn date. The matter was adjourned to February 27, 2020, for hearing. At this same time, this being the first time this matter appeared before the court after the January 1, 2020 effective date of CPL Article 245, applying the new discovery statute, the court instructed the People to comply with their discovery obligations during this fifteen (15) day adjournment.
On February 27, 2020, once again, the People were not ready to proceed with the scheduled hearing. The matter was adjourned, for hearing, to March 31, 2020. At this same time, not being in actual possession of certain discoverable material, the People made an application for an extension of their time to complete their discovery obligations for thirty (30) days, pursuant to CPL § 245.10(1)(a). Without objection, the court set March 23, 2020 as the date by which the People were to complete their discovery obligations.
On March 7, 2020, due to "the threat that Covid-19 poses to the health and welfare of its residents and visitors[,]" Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202, inter alia , declaring "a State disaster emergency for the entire State of New York."
On March 16, 2020, at 5:30 p.m., the District Court of Nassau County shut down its operations pursuant to an Administrative Order of Hon. Norman St. George, the Administrative Judge, 10th Judicial District, Nassau County. Pursuant to that order, all "non-essential matters" would be administratively adjourned to a date on or after April 30, 2020. All "essential matters," defined as arraignments, applications for Orders of Protection and any matter deemed to be essential by the Supervising Judge in consultation with the Administrative Judge, would be handled in the Nassau County Court, located at 262 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York.
On March 18, 2020, the People provided the Defendant with a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to CPL § 245.50(1). The People did not file the certificate with the court at that time, due to the court's closure.
On March 20, 2020, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.8, inter alia , temporarily suspended "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding, as prescribed in the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to the criminal procedure law."
Against this backdrop, the Defendant presently moves for an order dismissing the all charges herein, pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 170.30. It is the Defendant's position that the People should be charged with the entire time from December 17, 2019 to March 18, 2020, a total of ninety-two (92) days. It is the People's position, in opposition, that they should be charged with a maximum of fifty-three (53) days. As will be discussed hereinafter, the difference lies in the application of CPL § 245 and its interplay with CPL § 30.30.
On December 17, 2019 the People were not ready to proceed with a previously scheduled suppression hearing. The People requested an adjournment for two (2) weeks; and, the court adjourned the matter to February 7, 2020.
Having declared their readiness for trial at the time of arraignment in a proper manner, See: People v. Kendzia , 64 NY2d 331, 337, 486 N.Y.S.2d 888, 890 (1985), the People argue that they are to only be charged with the time they requested for this adjournment. The Defendant, in tacit agreement with the propriety of the People's prior declaration of readiness, agrees.
At this time, this being a "post-readiness" adjournment request by the People, they shall only, at this point, be charged with the time they requested. See: People v. Anderson , 66 NY2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119 (1985) ; People v. Cortes , 80 NY2d 201, 590 N.Y.S.2d 9 (1992)
Accordingly, the People will be charged with fourteen (14) days for period of December 17, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
On January 1, 2020 the newly enacted CPL Article 245 became effective. CPL Article 240 was simultaneously repealed. Amendments subsequently made to Article 245, which became effective on May 3, 2020 are not relevant to the determination of this motion.
CPL § 245.20(1) delineates what items the prosecution is required to disclose to a defendant. Notably, pursuant to the rubric established by the newly effective Article 245, unlike its predecessor, Article 240, a defendant need not serve a demand for these items upon the prosecution. The new discovery statute clearly places the onus on the prosecution to disclose that which is required.
CPL § 245.10 sets forth the time frames for the prosecution's compliance with their discovery obligations. Specifically, CPL § 245.10(1)(a) originally provided, in pertinent part, "The prosecution shall perform its initial discovery obligations under subdivision one of section 245.20 of this article as soon as practicable but not later than fifteen calendar days after the defendant's arraignment." This subparagraph further provides for an extension of up to thirty (30) days of the prosecution's obligation, without the need for a motion, for "materials which are exceptionally voluminous or, despite diligent, good faith efforts, are otherwise not in the actual possession of the prosecution."
CPL § 245.50(1) requires that the prosecution "shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance[,]" when they have provided the discovery required by section 245.20. Section 245.50(1) further provides, "No adverse consequences to the prosecution or the prosecutor shall result from filing of a certificate of compliance in good faith; but the court may grant a remedy or sanction for a discovery violation as provided in section 245.80 of this article."
CPL § 245.80(1)(a) provides possible remedies or sanctions for discovery violations, in pertinent part: "When material or information is discoverable under this article but is disclosed belatedly, the court shall impose an appropriate remedy or sanction if the party entitled to disclosure shows that it was prejudiced." Subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this section set forth various remedies or sanctions which the court may impose.
CPL § 245.50(3) further provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, 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 pursuant to subdivision one of this section.
Simultaneously with this enactment and effective date of this new Article 245, the Legislature added a new CPL § 30.30(5), providing, in pertinent part:
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 of this chapter and the defense shall be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the record as to whether the disclosure requirements have been met.
With all of this in mind, a determination of whether the People are to be charged with the time from January 1, 2020 to February 7, 2020, is to be made, as it always has been made. As the court pointed out in People v. Percell , 67 Misc 3d 190, 119 N.Y.S.3d 731 (Crim. Ct. NY Co. 2020:
‘Whether the People have satisfied [their CPL § 30.30 ] obligation is generally determined by computing the time elapsed between the filing of the first accusatory instrument and the People's declaration of readiness, subtracting any periods of delay that are excludable under the terms of the statute and then adding to the result in any post readiness periods of delay that are actually attributable to the People and are ineligible for exclusion.’ ( People v. Cortes , 80 NY2d 201, 208, 590 N.Y.S.2d 9, 604 N.E.2d 71 [1992] ).
It is clear to this court that Article 245 is a procedural statute, which entirely reworked the framework within which discovery is to be provided, applicable to cases pending on January 1, 2020, as well as to cases commenced on or after that effective date. See : People v. Piasecki, 66 Misc 3d 1231(A), 2020 NY Slip Op 50335(U) ; People v. Napalitano , 67 Misc 3d 1241(A), 202 NY Slip Op 50802(U) As a practical matter, if Article 245 were not given such retroactive effect, there would be no statute governing discovery in cases already pending on January 1, 2020, given the fact that Article 240 was repealed in its entirety on that date.
While the People acknowledge that Article 245 is applicable to all cases pending prior to January 1, 2020, as well...
To continue reading
Request your trial