Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Suzanne Mondo, J., on speedy trial motion; A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J., at trial), rendered January 7, 2005, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from judgment of conviction (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered January 7, 2005, held in abeyance and matter remanded for a de novo determination of defendant's speedy trial motion.

The motion court's summary denial of defendant's speedy trial motion, issued before the People had an opportunity to respond and based solely on the court file notations, was improper. Where a defendant moves to dismiss on CPL 30.30 grounds and includes sworn allegations as to an unexcused delay in excess of the statutory 90-day minimum, the burden shifts to the People to demonstrate that the delay is not properly chargeable to them (see People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333, 349 [1980]). As the People now concede, defendant's motion was facially sufficient, thus triggering his right to a hearing to resolve any factual disputes and to provide the People with an opportunity to meet the allegations.

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments with respect to the denial of his motion to suppress and the court's jury charge concerning his failure to submit to a chemical test, and find them lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: June 25, 2008