People v. Vincelli

CourtNew York Town Court
Writing for the CourtC. BENN FORSYTH
Citation398 N.Y.S.2d 395,91 Misc.2d 635
Decision Date12 September 1977
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Joseph VINCELLI and Richard Marino, Defendants.

Page 395

398 N.Y.S.2d 395
91 Misc.2d 635
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph VINCELLI and Richard Marino, Defendants.
Town Court, Town of Webster, Monroe County.
Sept. 12, 1977.

Palmiere, Passero & Crimi, Rochester, for defendants.

Norman A. Palmiere, Rochester, of counsel.

Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty. of Monroe County, Rochester, for plaintiff.

C. BENN FORSYTH, Judge:

Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The facts are not in dispute. The defendants were arrested on January 7, 1977. On March 23, 1977, upon Motion of the defendants, the charges were dismissed by this Court upon the grounds that the Informations were insufficient to allege a crime.

In April of 1977 new Informations were placed before the Court. The defendants voluntarily appeared. This was done so that the defendants would not be arrested and could appear at their own convenience. The Motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial was made May 26, 1977 returnable June 1, 1977. It has been uniformly held that the time, on a Motion to dismiss for failure to obtain a speedy trial, attaches from the date of arrest, not from the date of a mere allegation (People v. John, 76 Misc.2d 582, 350 N.Y.S.2d 44). The time runs from the arrest or the first court appearance (People v. Kaplowitz, 74 Misc.2d 66, 344 N.Y.S.2d 129). A criminal proceeding is started by the appearance of the defendant, either by arrest or voluntary appearance. The defendants did appear on the present charges on May 4, 1977. The Court holds that this is the date to be used for the purpose of a speedy trial. The fact that there had been prior criminal proceedings which terminated, due to the defendant's Motion and over the objection of the District Attorney, does not extend back to January 7, 1977. The case of People v. Lupo does not conflict with this result (People v. Lupo, 74 Misc.2d 679, 345 N.Y.S.2d 348). In that case the People asked for a withdrawal of the complainant so they could present the matter to the Grand Jury. It was the People's strategy, in a continuing litigation, that resulted in the delay. In the case at bar the defendant's Motion resulted

Page 396

in a termination of the original proceeding over the People's objection. The People were in no way responsible for deliberately delaying.

Cases considering pre-trial delay should be based on balance of the factors of: 1, the extent of the delay; 2, reason for the delay; 3, the nature of the charge; 4,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • People v. Nizza
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • May 18, 1978
    ...Turning to the opposing authority previously noted, it does indeed militate against Nizza's position (People v. Vincelli et al., 91 Misc.2d 635, 398 N.Y.S.2d 395 (Town Ct., Monroe Co., 1977)). But the opinion in question dealing with an information filed after an earlier information had bee......
1 cases
  • People v. Nizza
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • May 18, 1978
    ...Turning to the opposing authority previously noted, it does indeed militate against Nizza's position (People v. Vincelli et al., 91 Misc.2d 635, 398 N.Y.S.2d 395 (Town Ct., Monroe Co., 1977)). But the opinion in question dealing with an information filed after an earlier information had bee......

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