14-378. THE PEOPLE, app, v. CHRISTOPHER CATES, def-res — Order (Linda Poust-Lopez, J.), dated December 10, 2013, modified, on the law and the facts, by denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges of resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, three counts of attempted assault in the third degree and three counts of harassment in the second degree, and by reinstating the accusatory instrument insofar as it relates to those charges; as modified, order affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Court for further proceedings.
The underlying charges stem from a physical altercation between defendant and the complaining witnesses, four correction officers. The People’s March 26, 2013 statement of readiness to proceed to trial on charges of resisting arrest (Penal Law §205.30), obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law §195.05), three of the four counts of attempted assault in the third degree (Penal Law 110/120.00[1]), and three of the four counts of harassment in the second degree (Penal Law §240.26[1]), effectively stopped the “speedy trial” clock, inasmuch as the counts of the accusatory instrument pertaining to those charges were “deemed” converted to an information on that date (CPL 170.65[1]), and no basis is shown to conclude that the People were not then actually ready to proceed on the converted charges (see People v. Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998]; People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337 [1985]). That the accusatory instrument may have contained two other counts which had not been timely converted did not signify a lack of readiness to proceed on the properly converted counts, concerning which the People were “technically positioned” to go to trial (People v. Terry, 225 AD2d 306, 307 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 886 [1996]; see also People v. Dion, 93 NY2d 893 [1999]). It need be emphasized that speedy trial analysis “must, as a matter of course, often involve distinct considerations with respect to individual counts of a single accusatory instrument” (People v. Ausby, 46 Misc 3d 126[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 51763 [App Term, 1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1218 [2015]; People v. Gonzalez, 168 Misc 2d 136, 137 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 936 [1996], each quoting from People v. Minor, 144 Misc 2d 846, 848 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 666 [1989]).
