People v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 19 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. CR-028071-21NY |
| Citation | 171 N.Y.S.3d 882 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Daniel ROBERTS Jr, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Criminal Court |
Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem (Meghna Philip of counsel), for defendant.
Alvin Bragg (Daniel Mirabelli of counsel), for the People.
Motion, styled as seeking relief from prior orders through renewal and reargument, is denied.
In two decisions and orders dated June 3, 2022, this court denied defendant's omnibus motion and motion to dismiss. Defendant now moves pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) and (e) to renew and reargue the omnibus motion and, upon renewal or reargument, for an order granting the motion. Defendant also moves in the alternative pursuant to CPL 255.20(3) for an order deciding the omnibus motion on the merits in the interest of justice and for good cause shown. In addition, defendant moves pursuant to CPLR 2221(d) to reargue the motion to dismiss and, upon reargument, for an order granting the motion.
Defendant affirms in the moving papers that the defense filed its omnibus motion four days late off calendar on April 8, 2022 (defendant's affirmation in support at 4-5 ¶¶ 5, 5 n 1, 8). Defendant further affirms that the defense also filed the motion to dismiss on April 8, 2022 (id. at 4-5 ¶ 13). Defendant further affirms that the next court date was May 6, 2022 (id. at 5 ¶ 14).
Defendant argues, in sum and substance, that the court, by setting a briefing schedule for the motions at the May 6 appearance and adjourning the case to June 3 for decision, "implicitly extended" or was "implicitly fixing additional time" for defendant's untimely motion (id. at 7 ¶¶ 11-12). Defendant argues that "[i]n filing its motions forty-nine days after conversion ... defense counsel was petitioning the court to consider the substance of those motions four days beyond the forty-five day timeline enumerated in CPL 255.20(1)" (id. at 6-7 ¶ 8). Defendant further argues that the court "accepted the motions as filed" where it could have summarily denied the late omnibus motion, and that allowing full briefing where "the timeline for filing those substantive motions was not being implicitly extended ... would not make sense and would be a waste of judicial resources" (id. at 7 ¶ 11).
Defendant further argues that the prosecution did not claim that the omnibus motion was untimely and that this reflects an understanding that the court had permitted additional time pursuant to CPL 255.20(1) (id. at 5 ¶ 15, at 7 ¶ 10). Defendant further maintains that there was no prejudice to the prosecution or bad faith on the part of the defense (id. at 7 ¶ 9).
Defendant affirms that its original motion papers "contain[ed] neither an affirmation as to [their] own timeliness nor an application for additional time" and argues that "had defense counsel been on notice that the court was not implicitly fixing additional time by accepting the motion and setting a motion schedule, certainly, counsel would have filed a reply with such an affirmation, including the fact that counsel's family members were ill with COVID during the week preceding the forty-five day deadline for filing the motion" (id. at 7 ¶ 12). Defendant affirms that "[d]uring the week of March 28 into the week of April 4, ... defense counsel was managing obligations in numerous cases and litigation matters, in addition to caretaking obligations at home" (id. at 4 ¶ 12). Defendant then argues that, as neither the prosecution nor the court remarked on whether the omnibus motion was untimely prior to the court's June 3, 2022 decision and order, "counsel was not on notice that timeliness of the motion was even at issue past the May 6, 2022 court date" (id. at 7 ¶ 12). Defendant then argues for discretionary relief pursuant to CPL 255.20(3), requesting that the court consider the motion on the merits in the interest of justice and for good cause shown.
The prosecution argues in opposition, as is relevant here, that defendant's motion to reargue should be denied because it includes new facts that were not in the original motion, such as that counsel's family was ill with covid. The prosecution further argues that it is "nonsensical" and a "novel concept" to argue that a court may not summarily deny a motion where it has set a combined schedule for two motions filed off calendar and where no previous motion schedule has been set (the prosecution's affirmation in opposition at 3). The prosecution further argues that defendant's ignorance of the requirements of CPL 255.20(1) and (3) is not an excuse.
Defendant argues in reply, as is relevant here, that the only new facts presented in the instant motion relate to "counsel's personal situation at the time of the filing of the earlier motions" but that they had not been included "because neither the prosecution nor the court indicated that the motion was being opposed or considered as untimely" (defendant's reply affirmation at 4-5 ¶ 8).
Although the CPL does not provide for renewal or reargument, criminal courts frequently adopt the procedures outlined in CPLR 2221, and the Appellate Division, First Department has held that criminal courts have the discretion to entertain motions for renewal ( People v. Godbold , 117 A.D.3d 565, 566, 985 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 997, 38 N.Y.S.3d 107, 59 N.E.3d 1219 [2016] ). As such, the court will consider the instant motion as a motion for leave to renew and reargue.
Based on the papers submitted, the branch of the motion seeking reargument of this court's denial of defendant's omnibus motion as untimely is denied to the extent that leave to reargue is denied. CPLR 2221(d)(2) provides that "A motion for leave to reargue ... shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion." Here, defendant admits that the instant motion includes new facts regarding counsel's circumstances in the approximately two weeks prior to the filing of the omnibus motion. As such, defendant has failed to establish entitlement to an order granting leave to reargue.
As to the branch of the motion seeking renewal of the omnibus motion, that is denied to the extent that leave to renew is denied. CPLR 2221(e)(2) and (3) provide, in pertinent part, that "A motion for leave to renew ... shall be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination" and "shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion." Here, defendant filed the subject motion, and a motion to dismiss, on April 8, 2022. The court set a briefing schedule on the motions at the following appearance, on May 6, 2022, noting in the docket, "[defendant] - served 2 motions", "[prosecution] — response 5/20", "[defendant] — [reply] 5/27", "[decision] 6/3". The court had before it on May 6 a combined total of 123 pages of moving papers, consisting of a 35-page omnibus motion and an 88-page motion to dismiss, inclusive of exhibits. Exclusive of exhibits, each motion was approximately 18 pages long.
Defendant's argument in the instant motion is, in effect, that the court was required to have read the moving papers at or before the May 6 appearance and have determined, prior to setting a briefing schedule on the motions, whether defendant's motion was timely, or included an application for additional time, or fell within some exception to the statute that would otherwise render it timely, or something similar. And if, upon the reading, the court determined that, as here, no such application was in the papers, and that, as here, no affirmation at all was made as to the timeliness of the motion, and that, as here, no exception applied on its face, the court would be required to apprise defendant of the deficiencies in the moving papers prior to setting a briefing schedule in order to afford defendant, in effect, a second bite at the apple to address that which should have been addressed in the first instance.
Defendant's fanciful arguments contemplate an ongoing review by courts of submitted motion papers prior to their full submission, else otherwise late motions be deemed timely by virtue of the court's establishing a briefing schedule for the orderly submission of further papers with the goal of deciding the motion. Contrary to the assertions by defendant in the moving papers, mandating an ongoing review of submitted papers on a rolling basis is itself a highly inefficient allocation of judicial resources. Courts routinely review motion papers when the motion is fully submitted, meaning all papers have been submitted on the motion. This serves numerous purposes, the most salient of which is perhaps avoiding prejudice by an initial reading of one-sided moving papers, only, to be followed weeks or months later by opposition papers.
While this may be the practice of some judges who obtain papers prior to a motion's full submission, it is by no means required, and in fact, in many New York courts, judges do not even receive, let alone review, moving papers until the motion has been fully submitted. Moreover, cases routinely end in a resolution, mooting motions under consideration that have not yet been fully submitted or decided. Having read papers on motions that are ultimately withdrawn or mooted is academic at best and an utter waste of time at worst.
It is the practice of this court to read motion papers once the motion has been fully submitted. As such, on May 6, all that was before the court was the knowledge that two motions had been filed off calendar and were not fully submitted, and so a briefing schedule and decision date needed to be set. It is not for the court to apprise a movant of the potential that the motion could be denied as untimely. Defendant is advised to refer to the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial