Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Richmond County (Desmond Green, J.), rendered March 22, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of sexual abuse in the third degree.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and accusatory instrument dismissed.

The People filed an accusatory instrument charging defendant with a class B misdemeanor. Thus, the People were required to be ready for trial within 60 days of the commencement of the action (CPL 30.30 [1] [c]). In the case at bar, the action was commenced on June 26, 2003, the date on which defendant appeared in court for thefirst time in response to the desk appearance ticket (see CPL 30.30 [5] [b]; People v Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434 [1998]). In his motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (c), defendant only takes issue with the adjournments from January 26, 2004 through April 20, 2004 and argues that the statements of readiness filed by the People during said time period were illusory and, therefore, the People should be charged with the entire time period.

It is well settled that "[a]n illusory statement of readiness by the People. . .is insufficient to stop the running of time for CPL 30.30 purposes. (See People v Cole, 73 NY2d 957, 958)" (People v Robinson, 171 AD2d 475, 477 [1991]; see also People v Thomas, 6 Misc 3d 126[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51675[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). The record establishes that on January 26, 2004, the People answered not ready for trial and the matter was adjourned to March 1, 2004. Prior to said adjourned date, on February 25, 2004, the People served and filed a statement of readiness. On the subsequent adjourned dates of March 1, 2004 and March 11, 2004, the People were not ready for trial and the matter was adjourned to March 30, 2004. On March 17, 2004, the People served and filed a second statement of readiness and on March 30, 2004, the People were once again not ready for trial and the matter was adjourned until April 20, 2004. On April 5, 2004, the People filed a third statement of readiness and on April 20, 2004, [*2]the case was adjourned on consent until May 13, 2004. On May 13, 2004, the People served and filed a motion for an order directing defendant to submit to a voice exemplar regarding a tape recorded voice mail message which they alleged was left by the defendant on the complainant's cell phone. On that same day, the Assistant District Attorney stated that the People had said tape in their possession since the day after the alleged incident occurred (May 7, 2003).

After reviewing the record, we agree with defendant's contention that the People's statements of readiness were illusory and that the People should be charged with the adjournments between January 26, 2004 and April 20, 2004. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed, defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30 granted and the accusatory instrument dismissed.

In light of the foregoing, this court does not reach defendant's remaining contentions on appeal.

Pesce, P.J., Weston Patterson and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: May 4, 2006