People v. Watson

• Decision Date: 02 November 1998
• Citation: 255 A.D.2d 344,681 N.Y.S.2d 36
• Parties: 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9582 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darnell WATSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 36

681 N.Y.S.2d 36

1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 9582

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darnell WATSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nov. 2, 1998.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Katheryne M. Martone of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Nicole Beder of counsel; Sabine L. Noisette on the brief), for respondent.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and McGINITY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered May 15, 1996, convicting him of resisting arrest, failure to obey official roadway markings, reckless driving, and making an improper turn, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court's finding that the People's postreadiness delay was attributable in part to the fact that the court was not in session during the Christmas and New Year's holidays is borne out by the record (cf., People v. Collins, 82 N.Y.2d 177, 604 N.Y.S.2d 11, 624 N.E.2d 139). Such postreadiness delay cannot be charged to the People (see, People v. Goss, 87 N.Y.2d 792, 797, 642 N.Y.S.2d 607, 665 N.E.2d 177; People v. McKenna, 76 N.Y.2d 59, 63, 556 N.Y.S.2d 514, 555 N.E.2d 911; People ex. rel. Sykes [Rodriguez] v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d 466, 586 N.Y.S.2d 937). An additional two-day period of postreadiness delay did not warrant dismissal pursuant to CPL 30.30, because "a less corrective action, such as preclusion or continuance, would have been available had the People's postreadiness default occurred during trial" (People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 534, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 was properly denied.