People v Clark (2011 NY Slip Op 51135(U))

People v Clark (Connie)

2011 NY Slip Op 51135(U) [31 Misc 3d 152(A)]

Decided on June 17, 2011

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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

against

Connie Clark, Respondent.

Consolidated appeal from orders of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), dated December 9, 2009 and March 29, 2010. The order dated December 9, 2009 granted defendant's motion to dismiss the information. The order dated March 29, 2010 denied the People's motion for leave to reargue their opposition to defendant's motion.

ORDERED that the order dated December 9, 2009 is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Criminal Court for all further proceedings; and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order dated March 29, 2010 is dismissed as academic and on the ground that no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue.

On April 3, 2006, defendant was charged in an information with two counts of endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10 [1], [2]) and was arraigned upon the instrument. Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the information pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b), on the ground that she had been denied her statutory right to a speedy trial. The People filed papers opposing the motion, in which they asserted, in relevant part, that as a result of their valid statement of readiness filed and mailed on May 14, 2008, they were only chargeable with 49 days. In an order dated December 9, 2009, the Criminal Court granted defendant's motion, finding, in pertinent part, that the statement of readiness was not effective and, thus, that the People were chargeable with a total of 244 days.

The People subsequently moved for leave to reargue their opposition to the prior motion, which reargument motion was denied by order dated March 29, 2010.

Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to determine that the May 14, 2008 statement of readiness did not accurately reflect the People's position, or that the People acted in bad faith by mailing the statement of readiness to defense counsel's former address. Consequently, we conclude that the May 14, 2008 statement of readiness was effective (see People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 799 [1998]; People v Vaughn, 36 AD3d 434 [2007]). As a result, we find that the People were only chargeable with a total of 49 days. [*2]

Accordingly, the order dated December 9, 2009 is reversed and defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds is denied.