Clarification of Answer by
06 May 2005 14:46 PDT
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
). 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 ; People v Betancourt,
217 A.D.2d 462, 464-465, 629 N.Y.S.2d 423 , lv denied 87 N.Y.2d
844, 661 N.E.2d 1384, 638 N.Y.S.2d 602 ). 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 ,
lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 862, [**541] 725 N.E.2d 1099, 704 N.Y.S.2d 537
), those periods do not affect the result.
I hope that's enough to get you started.
Best of luck.