| People v Taylor |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10430 [57 AD3d 1518] |
| December 31, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lanique Taylor,Appellant. |
—[*1] Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Peter L. Broderick, Sr., J.), rendered July6, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree (16counts) and petit larceny.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of, inter alia,16 counts of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20). Defendant failed to preserve forour review his contention that County Court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecutionwitness was an accomplice to the burglaries (see People v Smith-Merced, 50 AD3d 259 [2008], lv denied10 NY3d 939 [2008]; People vWeeks, 15 AD3d 845, 846 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]). In any event,that contention is without merit. The testimony of the prosecution witness in question did not implicateher as a person who participated in the burglaries (see CPL 60.22 [2] [a]) and, althoughdefendant's testimony conflicted with that testimony, the jury was entitled to credit the testimony of theprosecution witness over that of defendant (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490,495 [1987]).
Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motion seeking to dismiss theindictment on the ground that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial (see CPL30.30 [1]). We reject that contention. The record establishes that the People properly announced theirreadiness for trial by providing the court with a statement of readiness contemporaneously with the filingof the indictment and then promptly notifying defense counsel of the statement of readiness (see People v Freeman, 38 AD3d 1253[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 875, reconsideration denied 10 NY3d 811 [2007]; seegenerally People v Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]). Contrary to the contention of defendant,the People were not obligated pursuant to CPL 560.10 to apply to the court to transport him forarraignment from the state prison where he was confined prior to the expiration of the six-month period.Where, as here, the "local criminal court has already acquired control of the defendant prior to the filingof the indictment, [CPL 210.10] directs the court to notify the defendant of the arraignmentdate and to secure the defendant's appearance on that date . . . Obviously the court mustset its own calendar, and the statute thus contemplates the court scheduling the arraignment, notifyingthe defendant, and securing the defendant's attendance. Only [*2]wherethe filing of the indictment constituted the commencement of the criminal action does the statute permitthe court to delegate the latter two functions to the People" (People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792,797-798 [1996]; see People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998]; People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 530[2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 738 [2008]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Fahey,Peradotto and Pine, JJ.