[*1]
People v Gordon (Erik)
2004 NY Slip Op 50190(U)
Decided on March 24, 2004
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on March 24, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT:McCABE, P.J., RUDOLPH and ANGIOLILLO, JJ.
NO. 2003-549 W CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, —

against

ERIK H. GORDON, Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Justice Court, Town of Bedford, Westchester County (C. Banks, Jr., J.), rendered March 19, 2003, convicting him of speeding in violation of section 1180 (b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and imposing sentence.


Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

Since the defendant was only charged with a traffic infraction, he has no right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (People v Taylor, 189 Misc 2d 313 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]). However, the defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.20 (id.). 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]). It is our opinion that the 14-month delay between the date defendant was charged and the date of trial was not sufficient to require dismissal based on defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, defendant has not established that his defense was impaired by reason of the delay. In light of the foregoing, the defendant failed to adequately establish a sufficient basis to warrant the granting of his motion pursuant to CPL 30.20.

We find defendant's remaining contention to be lacking in merit.
Decision Date: March 24, 2004