Defendant moves for an order dismissing the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL §§ 30.30 and 170.30(1)(e).

For the reasons set forth herein, defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.

Defendant was arraigned on June 13, 2022 and charged with one count of Penal Law §§ 260.10(1) (endangering the welfare of a child); 110/120.00(1) (attempted third degree assault); and 240.26(1) (harassment in the second degree). Since the highest charge defendant faces is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, the People are required to be ready for trial within 90 days, less excludable time. People v. Alvia, 78 Misc 3d 1228(A) (Crim. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2023); People v. Valdez, 2023 WL 4876259 (Crim. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2023); CPL § 30.30(1)(b); see CPL § 1.20 (16-17). The 90-day calculation begins to run the day after defendant's arraignment. People v. Harris, 193 NY3d 894, 897-98 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2023).

On Monday, September 12, 2022, the People served all discovery on defense counsel and served and filed a Statement of Readiness ("SOR"), Automatic Disclosure Form ("ADF") and Certificate of Compliance ("CoC"). September 12, 2022 was the 91st day. Several months thereafter, on April 26, 2023, defendant requested a motion schedule which request halted the CPL § 30.30 time. On June 29, 2023, the court granted defendant's application for an amended motion schedule since motions were not filed due to a change in defense counsel.

In keeping with the motion schedule, defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory [*2]instrument on speedy trial grounds. Specifically, defendant argues that the service of the CoC and SoR were untimely given that September 11, 2022, a Sunday, was the ninetieth (90th) day. Defendant therefore proffers that the People should be charged 91 days for serving and filing the CoC and SoR on Monday, September 12, 2022.

In opposition, the People aver that when the 90th day falls on a weekend, the CPL § 30.30 speedy trial deadline is extended to the next business day. Moreover, the People assert that the CoC and SoR should be deemed valid since defendant had not raised any issues with the disclosed discovery.

For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds that the CoC and SoR were timely filed and served on the next business day following the expiration of the CPL § 30.30 speedy trial deadline. Accordingly, defendant's motion is denied.

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, when the last day of a calculation period "is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday." FRCP Rule 45(a)(1)(C). Unlike the federal rules, the New York Criminal Procedure Law is silent as to the effect of the CPL § 30.30 expiration day falling on a weekend. People v. Mandela, 142 AD3d 81 (3d Dept. 2016). Thus, in keeping with New York statutory law, New York General Construction Law must be applied "to every statute unless its general object, or the context of the language construed, or other provisions of law indicate that a different meaning or application was intended from that required to be given by this chapter." NY Gen Const L § 110. In addition, CPL § 30.30 does not state that New York General Construction Law is inapplicable when the speedy trial expiration lands on a weekend or holiday. Hence "[t]he General Construction Law should be read into every statute subsequently enacted, unless the wording of said statute plainly expresses a contrary intent." See People v. Powell, 179 Misc 2d 1047 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1999)(citation omitted).

Like the federal rules, General Construction Law § 25-a provides that when the filing date lands on a "Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday, such act may be done on the next succeeding business day." NY Gen Const L § 25-a. "Public holidays" are defined in General Construction Law § 24. Consequently, when a statute does not express specific deadlines, courts have applied General Construction Law to those matters. See People v. Campbell, 241 AD2d 723 (3d Dept. 1997) (When last day that Division of Parole had to complete final parole revocation hearing fell on Sunday, Division had until following business day to conclude hearing). Moreover, General Construction Law § 25-a has been applied to situations that involve the calculation of a deadline, such as the filing of legal papers or other documents. People v. Harris, 193 N.Y.S.3d 894 (Crim. Ct. Bronx Cnty. 2023) (CoC and SoR filed after 5:00 p.m.); People v. Lewis, 65 Misc 3d 1044 (Crim. Ct. N.Y Cnty. 2019) (CPL § 30.30 deadline falling on a weekend, time extended); see also Moran v. Delacruz, 2019 WL 1170877 (Sup. Ct. NY Cnty. 2019), lv denied, 93 NY2d 928 (1999) (statute of limitations fell on weekend); Butchers' Mut. Casualty Co. v. City of New York, 182 Misc. 809 (Sup. Ct. NY County 1944) (action timely filed on Monday January 3rd when period to commence action expired on January 1st, a public holiday, and January 2nd fell on Sunday). Similarly, courts have extended the CPL § 30.30 speedy trial time in the criminal context to the next business day under GCL § 25-a. See e.g. [*3]People v. Mandela, 142 AD3d 81 (3d Dept. 2016), lv denied 28 NY3d 1029 (2016) (excluding Saturday, Sunday, and President's Day from the CPL § 30.30 calculation); People v. Powell, 179 Misc 2d 1047 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 1999) (extending CPL §30.30 deadline from Sunday to Monday); People v. Turner, 71 Misc 3d 1219 (A) (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. 2021) (extending CPL §30.30 waiver from Saturday to Monday).

In the instant matter, the People's last day to announce readiness landed on a Sunday, September 11, 2022. Consistent with General Construction Law § 25-a, the People's time to announce their readiness is extended to the next business day — Monday, September 12, 2022. The People therefore timely filed and served the CoC and SoR.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the People did not exceed their CPL § 30.30 speedy trial time and the People's CoC and SoR are deemed valid. The court therefore denies defendant's motion in its entirety. Moreover, the CoC and SoR are deemed valid given defendant has not raised any issues with the disclosed discovery.

This constitutes the decision of the court.