People v. Sperling
| Decision Date | 03 July 1995 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Derrick SPERLING. |
| Court | New York District Court |
James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney of Suffolk County, Central Islip, for plaintiff.
Robert C. Mitchell, Legal Aid Society of Suffolk Co., Central Islip, for defendant.
Defendant is charged in multiple simplified traffic informations with violations of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and moves to dismiss, asserting the informations are insufficient on their faces because he has not been served with supporting depositions from the complainant police officer pursuant to CPL § 100.25(2) (see CPL § 100.40(2)).
The entitlement to a supporting deposition arises when a defendant prosecuted under a simplified information makes a timely demand for one. To be timely, the demand must be made within thirty days of a not guilty plea if defendant is arraigned in person, or within thirty days of written notice to defendant of the right to a deposition when he has submitted a not guilty plea by mail (CPL § 100.25(2)). The failure to supply the deposition within thirty days of the date a timely request is received renders the simplified information insufficient on its face, as defendant notes (CPL §§ 100.25(2), 100.40(2); see People v. Nuccio, 78 N.Y.2d 102, 104, 571 N.Y.S.2d 693, 575 N.E.2d 111), and dismissal is mandatory (People v. Thumser, 148 Misc.2d 472, 567 N.Y.S.2d 571).
The markings on the court file reflect that defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges on May 25, 1994. He demanded a supporting deposition more than six months thereafter, on December 7, 1994, when defense counsel, who first appeared for him on December 6, 1994, filed a demand letter with the court. Implicit in defendant's assertion that his demand for a deposition is timely, having been served one day after counsel's first appearance, is an assumption that the time to make the demand is revived, or extended, for those defendants who obtain the representation of counsel following entry of their not guilty pleas. The court is of the opinion that this assumption is unsupportable. The statute itself does not provide for such a revival or extension (see CPL § 100.25(2)). When the legislature has deemed an extension of time appropriate in deference to defense counsel who appears after arraignment, it has drafted the extension provision into the legislation. It has expressly provided, for example, that pretrial motions, which usually must be made within forty-five days after arraignment, may be made within forty-five days of the first appearance of counsel when an unrepresented defendant has requested an adjournment to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Utsett
...(Yonkers City Ct. 1995); People v. Malone, 166 Misc 2d 54, 631 N.Y.S.2d 223, 223—24 (Suffolk Co. Dist. Ct. 1995); People v. Sperling, 165 Misc 2d 1024, 631 N.Y.S.2d 221, 222 (Suffolk Co. Dist. Ct. 1995); People v. Smith, 163 Misc 2d 353, 621 N.Y.S.2d 449, 456 (Perinton Just. Ct. 1994); Peop......
-
People v. Utsett
...(Yonkers City Ct.1995) ; People v. Malone, 166 Misc.2d 54, 631 N.Y.S.2d 223, 223–24 (Suffolk Co.Dist.Ct.1995) ; People v. Sperling, 165 Misc.2d 1024, 631 N.Y.S.2d 221, 222 (Suffolk Co.Dist.Ct.1995) ; People v. Smith, 163 Misc.2d 353, 621 N.Y.S.2d 449, 456 (Perinton Just.Ct.1994) ; People v.......
-
People v. Moeirzadeh
...period is not affected by, or extended based on the timing of defense counsel'sPage 7appearance in the case. (See People v Sperling, 165 Misc 2d 1024, 631 N.Y.S. 2d 221 (Suffolk District Court, 1995), In her reply to the People's Opposition, defense counsel makes the argument that under the......
-
People v. Shenandoah
...demand period is not affected by, or extended based on the timing of defense counsel's appearance in the case. See, People v. Sperling, 165 Misc.2d 1024, 631 N.Y.S.2d 221 [Suffolk Dist Ct 1995]. The People's second argument is that Town Court's order for a supporting deposition was redundan......