I would like a link to each of the following law cases that will
provide me with the full court decision.  For those for which that
can't be done, it will be sufficient to give me the LexisNexis
code so that I can pay $9 by credit card to go in with that code to
LexisNexis, verify the case header is correct and then order the
decision in that manner. Here are the cases I need.  I quote entirely
the passage containing the cases I want.  It is from a motion response
written by a young assistant district attorney who seems to have maybe
been copying from a law book he used in school.  That is just a guess.
The ADA was working in Manhattan, NY.

  "...The case law is very clear that the People are only charged for
the 5 days from April 15 to April 20.  The People are 'entitield to
rely on [this] judicial representation regarding excludable time." 
People v. Hayes, 141 Misc.2d 505, 508 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1988);
accord People v. Robinson 171 A.D.2d 475 (1st Dept. 1991); People v.
Wilson, 119 A.D.2d 843 (2d Dept. 1986). This is especially true here
since the additional time was granted not because of any fault of the
People"

  In the best of all possible worlds, I would like a link to the full
text of each and in addition the LexisNexis code to each. That would
certainly justify a tip.

---

Request for Question Clarification by justaskscott-ga on 05 May 2005 23:57 PDT

You don't need a special code or a link to get these cases by credit
card.  (The code or link, I believe, would be different for each user
-- the URLs contain long strings of gibberish, which suggest a unique
identifier for the individual user.)

You just need to register, and then you can find these cases fairly
quickly.  I have checked on Lexis, and confirmed that these cases are
available there for purchase by credit card.

Would instructions on how to register (assuming you haven't done that
already) and to search for these cases, with links to the registration
and search forms, be a sufficient answer?

---

Clarification of Question by inquiringmind002-ga on 06 May 2005 03:45 PDT

I am already a registered user of LexisNexis with a password and my
credit card number on file there.  The problem for me is that I am not
very good at figuring out the code to put in to get each individual
court decision. For examples, for case law LexisNexis "help" shows
these acceptable formats:

State
246 App Div 2d 682
19 Cal 4th 142
23 Fla. Law W. D 733
344 Ill. App. 266
344 Mich. 624
230 N.J. Super. 182
23 N.Y.S.2d 2
84 Ohio St. 3d 1457
2000 PA Super 2
150 Tex. 3

    Consider the  example about for New York is:  23 Y.Y.S.2d 2".  In
my question is the following:

People v. Hayes, 141 Misc.2d 505, 508 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1988);

     My problem is that I don't have enough experience to know how to
change the above into a LexisNexis code that when I type it in will
bring up that exact case.  I try things like, "141 NYS 2d 505", etc.,
and it comes back with no results.
   
   So the answer is "yes" that I will be completely satisfied if you
give me the correct LexisNexis "look up codes" so that when I log onto
Lexis I can use those to one by one bring up the cases I need and then
pay nine dollars for each.

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 06 May 2005 05:07 PDT

inquiring,

When I cut and paste the citations as you've written them and put them
directly into the "Citation" box in a Lexis search, each of the three
cases shows up without any problem:


141 Misc.2d 505

171 A.D.2d 475 

119 A.D.2d 843 



The only thing that is a bit confusing to me is the first case, which
is shown in your excerpt as:

141 Misc.2d 505, 508 

I can only find a case with the citation [ 141 Misc.2d 505 ] --
nothing with a '508' in it, however.


Have you tried pasting these three citations directly into the
Citation box?  They should work out just fine.

Let me know how it goes.


pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by inquiringmind002-ga on 06 May 2005 10:11 PDT

You gave me enough that I was able to go into LexisNexis and
order/print the three cases I asked you about.  So, we can close this
now and you will get the $35 you bid for.  However I have a
proposition for you.  If you would like me to give you a tip, say,
$25, you could provide me with LexisNexix code(s) that would allow me
to print a case that I could use to support what I am trying to
accomplish.  Here is what I am trying to accomplish.
   In a New York State criminal case, the People answered "not ready" on April 15
but stated they would be ready on April 20.  Meanwhile, their witness
died on April 19.  When a 30.30 motion was submitted, the People
responded that they had issued a certificate of readiness on May 17
and that they were willing to concede all of the days from April 15 to
May 17 as counting towards the Speedy Trial time.
   However the deciding juddge over-ruled the People and said that
only 5 days would be granted.  The judge said that since the people
said on April 15 they'd be ready on April 20, that was 5 days and the
remaining time until the certificate of readiness was issued (May 17)
was irrelevant.  However, the People did not tell the judge or anyone
else that the witness had died and that they really had needed until
May 17 to reformulate their case so their could do it without that
witness.
   I think you get the idea.  Or, you could ask for clarification if
you need more.  The judge did not know the witness had died and simply
thought the People had made a mistake in their 30.30 time calculation.
  The People now argue that since the defense did not object to the
error, it should stand.  However the defenese did not know the witness
had died... when they finally found out they immediately did object by
issuing a new 30.30 motion, which is the one the People responded to
by arguing it was too late to object to the judge's earlier ruling.
  Would you like to give me a case(s) I could use in return for a tip?

inquiring,

I'm glad to hear that the information I gave you earlier was enough
for you to retrieve the cases you were looking for.

Your follow-up question is actually considerably more detailed and
complex than your original question, so I'm not sure how much
information I'll be able to provide in that regard.

Give me a day or so to look around, and I'll let you know with a
follow-up comment what I've been able to find.

However, you may also want to consider posting your circumstances as a
separate question, so that the entire researcher community can look
into it.  There may be someone out some with direct familiarity with
the sort of situation you describe...you never know!

Stay tuned...

paf

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 06 May 2005 14:46 PDT

inquiringmind002-ga,

As I suspected, there was not an obvious case that I could find that
closely mirrored your very particular set of circumstances.

I did find a fairly recent NY case that -- although brief -- cites
several precedent cases regarding "readiness".  The case is this one:


===============
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Jamal Andrews, Respondent. 

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT 
763 N.Y.S.2d 540

June 19, 2003, Decided  


OPINION:  [*166]   [**540]  Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County
(Patricia Williams, J.), entered on or about March 14, 2002, which
granted defendant's speedy trial motion pursuant to CPL 30.30 and
dismissed the indictment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly dismissed the indictment. The 140-day delay from
June 12 to October 30, 2001 was properly charged to the People. The
record, which the People had the burden to clarify, does not support
their contention that the case was adjourned for the People to submit
opposition papers regarding a motion that had been resolved during the
June 12 court appearance, and/or for the court's continued
consideration of the motion. Therefore, that period was properly
charged to the prosecution based on its adjournment request (see
People v Jamison, 87 N.Y.2d 1048, 643 N.Y.S.2d 479, 666 N.E.2d 184
[1996]). Although the matter was inexplicably adjourned by the court
on June 26 to October 30, 2001, there [***2]  was nothing about the
adjournment that would have excused the People from filing a
certificate of readiness (see People v Collins, 82 N.Y.2d 177,
181-182, 604 N.Y.S.2d 11, 624 N.E.2d 139 [1993]; People v Betancourt,
217 A.D.2d 462, 464-465, 629 N.Y.S.2d 423 [1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d
844, 661 N.E.2d 1384, 638 N.Y.S.2d 602 [1995]). When this 140-day
period is coupled with the 53 days that the People conceded to be
includable, the total includable  [*167]  time exceeds the statutory
six-month time limit. Although the People were improperly charged with
the delays from January 2 to January 16, 2001 and March 13 to May 15,
2001 (see People v Douglas, 264 A.D.2d 671, 696 N.Y.S.2d 115 [1999],
lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 862,  [**541]  725 N.E.2d 1099, 704 N.Y.S.2d 537
[1999]), those periods do not affect the result.

===============


I hope that's enough to get you started.

Best of luck.


pafalafa-ga

---

Request for Answer Clarification by inquiringmind002-ga on 06 May 2005 20:30 PDT

I thank you for the excellent job you have done.  I will close the
question if I can figure out how. I will give you a $25 tip, again if
I can figure out how to do it. Tx again.

---

Clarification of Answer by pafalafa-ga on 06 May 2005 20:36 PDT

Looks like you figured out the Google Answers procedutes very
successfully...hope you do the same with the court system!

All the best, and thanks so much for your generosity.

paf

I got exactly the answer I was hoping for. Great job. Tx.