| People v Smith |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07083 [88 AD3d 749] |
| October 4, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Anthony Smith, Respondent. |
—[*1] Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William A. Loeb of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), datedDecember 10, 2009, which, upon reargument, adhered to its determination in an order of thesame court dated June 22, 2009, granting the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 todismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his statutory right to a speedy trial.
Ordered that the order dated December 10, 2009, is reversed, on the law, upon reargument,the determination in the order dated June 22, 2009, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss theindictment is vacated, the defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss the indictment isdenied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, KingsCounty, for further proceedings on the indictment.
Pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a), the People must be ready for trial within six months of thecommencement of a criminal action in which a felony is charged (see People v Goss, 87NY2d 792, 796 [1996]; People v McKenna, 76 NY2d 59, 62 [1990]). Here, the Peoplefiled the indictment and a statement of readiness with the Supreme Court on November 16, 2007,within the six-month period. Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, the Peopleshould not have been charged with a 12-day period of postreadiness delay between November 16,2007, and November 28, 2007, as the delay in obtaining records from the Criminal Court so thatthe defendant could be arraigned is properly attributable to the Criminal Court (see People vCarter, 91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d at 797-798). After this12-day period is excluded, the total time chargeable to the People was 173 days. Since theamount of time chargeable to the People did not exceed 184 days, [*2]representing the six-month period applicable here, uponreargument, the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment should have been denied. Skelos,J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.