People v. Teachey

• Decision Date: 28 December 1998
• Citation: 181 Misc.2d 988,696 N.Y.S.2d 625
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>EDWARD TEACHEY, Defendant.
• Court: New York Criminal Court

181 Misc.2d 988
696 N.Y.S.2d 625

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
EDWARD TEACHEY, Defendant.

December 28, 1998.

Legal Aid Society, New York City (Harold Bahr of counsel), for defendant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Kimberly Ann Kinirons of counsel), for plaintiff.

OPINION OF THE COURT

LUCY BILLINGS, J.

On December 4, 1997, the People filed an accusatory instrument

[181 Misc.2d 989]

charging defendant with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), operating a motor vehicle while impaired (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [1]), two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1], [2]), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). Defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument on the ground that the People were not ready for trial within the statutory time. (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]; 170.30 [1] [e].) For the reasons discussed below, the court denies the motion.

I. The Record of Events and the Parties' Contentions

The People were required to declare their readiness for trial within 90 days, by March 4, 1998, absent excludable time. (CPL 30.30 [1] [b].) The parties agree that the People declared their readiness for trial on July 23, 1998, by filing a certificate of readiness with the court and communicating that readiness by mail to defendant. (People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 [1985].) Thus defendant has demonstrated a prima facie violation of the trial readiness rule. (People v Betancourt, 217 AD2d 462, 463 [1st Dept 1995].) The burden is now on the People to establish that sufficient time is excludable to render their declaration of readiness timely. (People v Luperon, 85 NY2d 71, 77-78 [1995]; People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861 [1986]; People v Fields, 214 AD2d 332 [1st Dept 1995].)

According to the record of court action, defendant's motion to dismiss, and the People's response, the relevant events are as follows:

(1) Following the filing of a misdemeanor complaint and defendant's arraignment, on December 4, 1997, the case was adjourned at the People's request to December 9, 1997, for them to corroborate the complaint with a supporting deposition and laboratory report. The People concede that the five days are chargeable to them.

(2) On December 9, 1997, the People failed to produce the necessary corroboration to convert the complaint to an information. The case again was adjourned at their request and for that purpose...