People v. Williams

and the matter was adjourned to April 12, 2000 for trial. Therefore, a total of 14 days is chargeable during this period. On April 12, 2000, the People were not ready to proceed. Although the People requested that the matter be adjourned to April 17, 2000, the court adjourned the case until May 15, 2000. Since this case was in a postreadiness posture due to the certificate of readiness filed and served on February 22, 2000, only five days are chargeable to the People during this period. (People v Smith, 82 NY2d, supra, at 678; People v Urraea, 214 AD2d 378 [1st Dept 1995], citing People ex rel. Sykes v Mitchell, 184 AD2d 466, 468 [1st Dept 1992].) On May 15, 2000, the People were not ready and the case was adjourned to May 22, 2000 for trial. A total of seven days is chargeable during this period. Again, on May 22, 2000, the People were not ready to proceed and the matter was adjourned to June 15, 2000 for trial. Although the court file has no such notation, the People claim that they requested the matter adjourned to June 1, 2000. Because the defendant has not disputed the People's assertion on this point, it will be accepted by the court. Therefore, because this case was in a postreadiness posture, only 10 days are chargeable to the People during this period. (People v Smith, 82 NY2d, supra, at 678; People v Urraea, 214 AD2d, supra, at 378.) On June 15, 2000, the People were not ready as the assigned Assistant District Attorney was engaged in the trial of another matter. This case was adjourned to August 3, 2000 for trial. A total of 49 days is chargeable to the People during this period. On August 3, 2000, defense counsel filed and served the instant motion to dismiss. The case was then adjourned to August 7, 2000 for response and decision. On August 7, 2000, the People filed their response to the instant motion to dismiss. Although the reason is not clear, the court file indicates that this matter was adjourned to August 8, 2000, again for the People to file a response. On August 8, 2000, the People filed a supplemental response and this court adjourned the case to September 18, 2000 for decision. On September 18, 2000, the court had not yet rendered a decision and this matter was adjourned to October 10, 2000 for final decision. Again, any delay occasioned by pretrial motions is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (a). In sum, a total of 151 days is chargeable to the People since the commencement of this action on November 15, 1999. Since more than 90 days have elapsed from the commencement of the action, the motion to dismiss must be granted. [1] Although the court file has no such notation, the defendant has not disputed the People's assertion on this point. Accordingly, it will be accepted by the court. [2] In the People's supplemental response to defendant's speedy trial motion, the People state that they were both not ready for trial and that they answered ready for trial, and then acknowledge that the period is chargeable to them. Given the People's confusion, the absence of any reference to the People's readiness in the court file, and the People's obligation to justify any delay, the court holds that the People were not ready for trial on March 29, 2000.