People v Bonacorso (2010 NY Slip Op 50131(U))

People v Bonacorso (Daniel)

2010 NY Slip Op 50131(U) [26 Misc 3d 134(A)]

Decided on January 27, 2010

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Daniel Bonacorso, Appellant.

Appeal from judgments of the City Court of Rye, Westchester County (Peter Lane, J.), rendered March 29, 2007. The judgments convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of speeding, riding a motorcycle between lanes, having a bent license plate and failing to comply with a lawful order.

A defendant's constitutional speedy trial claim (CPL 30.20) survives a guilty plea (see People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845 [1980]; People v Rozell, 162 AD2d 732 [1990]). In determining whether a defendant has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the following factors must be considered: "(1) the extent of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the nature of the underlying charge; (4) whether or not there has been an extended period of pretrial incarceration; and (5) whether or not there is any indication that the defense has been impaired by reason of the delay" (People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 445 [1975]). An inexcusable delay "will not, in and of itself, be sufficient to warrant the drastic measure of dismissal" (id. at 446).

In the case at bar, there was a 21-month delay (see People v Gordon, 2 Misc 3d 134[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50190[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2004]) and defendant has not established that his defense was impaired by reason thereof (see People v Krienan, 2002 NY Slip Op 40359[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2002]). Consequently, we are in agreement with the City Court's determination that defendant failed to adequately demonstrate a sufficient basis to warrant the granting of his motion to dismiss on the ground that he has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 30.20). Accordingly, the judgments convicting defendant, upon his guilty pleas, of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic § 1180 [b]), riding a motorcycle between lanes (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1252 [c]), having a bent license plate (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 402 [1]) and failing to comply with a lawful order (Vehicle and [*2]Traffic Law § 1102) are affirmed.