People ex rel. Latta v Morgenthau
2010 NY Slip Op 04266 [73 AD3d 593]
May 20, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 30, 2010


The People of the State of New York ex rel. Douglas Latta,Appellant,
v
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York County, et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Douglas Latta, appellant pro se.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Olivia Sohmer of counsel), forrespondents.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Melkonian,J.), entered on or about September 28, 2009, denying and dismissing the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court erred in dismissing the petition as a collateral attack on the speedy trial decision ofthe court handling the criminal case. While "[h]abeas corpus does not lie to determine whetherthe right to a speedy trial has been denied in a pending criminal action" (People ex rel.Harrison v Greco, 38 NY2d 1025, 1025 [1976]), where the relief sought by petitioner isrelease pursuant to CPL 30.30 (2) (a), such a claim is cognizable on a habeas corpus petition,since a defendant seeking release under the statute has no other way to appeal an adverse rulingother than to seek a writ of habeas corpus (see People ex rel. Chakwin v Warden,N.Y. City Correctional Facility, Rikers Is., 63 NY2d 120, 125 [1984]).

However, petitioner's claim fails on the merits, since all adjournments prior to the ruling onthis petition were excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) (a) as delays attributable to motion practice(People v Worley, 66 NY2d 523, 527 [1985]), including the time that the pretrialmotions were under consideration by the court (see People v Reid, 214 AD2d 396[1995]; People v Douglas, 209 AD2d 161, 162 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 908[1995]). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the time the court took to decide the relevantmotions was not excessive in light of the number of parties involved and the complexity of themotions.[*2]

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentionsand find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter andAbdus-Salaam, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.