The following papers were read:Notice of Motion – Affirmation of Anthony C. Cillis, Esq. 1 – 3Annexed ExhibitsAffidavit of Service 4Leah C. Canton, Esq.’s Affirmation in Response 5 – 6Affidavit of ServiceGrand Jury Minutes – Indictment – Voluntary Disclosure Form 7 -9Transcripts from City of Newburgh Court 10DECISION & ORDER Defendant Sean Halpin moves for an order, pursuant to CPL §30.30, dismissing the Indictment, on the ground that defendant’s right to a speedy trial was violated.By Decision and Order dated July 27, 2018, the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30 was held in abeyance pending receipt of the stenographer’s minutes from the City of Newburgh Court. The Court is now in receipt of the stenographer’s minutes and upon review it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30 is denied.The defendant is charged with Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (PL 215.50[3]), a class A misdemeanor. Accordingly, the applicable speedy trial period is 90 days (see, CPL §30.30[1][b]).The Court reviewed the chronology of the instant case as set forth by the minutes and the documents filed with the Court. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:On April 24, 2017, defendant was arraigned with counsel in the City of Newburgh Court and the matter was adjourned “for further proceedings on May 4, 2017.” (The defendant had a pending felony case which had already been adjourned to May 4, 2017.) The Court finds the ten days between April 24, 2017 and May 4, 2017 to be chargeable to the People.On May 4, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned, along with the pending felony, on consent to July 6, 2017 “for further proceedings.” By letter to defendant’s counsel dated May 2, 2017, Assistant District Attorney Joseph C. Leahy stated the People’s readiness for trial in this misdemeanor matter. A review of the Court’s file reveals that said May 2, 2017 Statement of Readiness was filed with the City of Newburgh Court on May 8, 2017. The Court finds that since the People’s Statement of Readiness was filed on May 8, 2017, a date which is included within the consented to adjournment period, no additional time is chargeable to the People.On July 6, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter, along with the pending felony, was adjourned on consent to August 10, 2017. As the People had already filed their Statement of Readiness on May 8, 2017, no additional time is chargeable to the People.On August 10, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh City Court and this matter was adjourned “for disposition”to September 14, 2017. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On September 14, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned at the request of defendant’s counsel to the same date that the pending felony had been adjourned to: October 12, 2017. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On October 12, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and the instant matter was adjourned “for further proceedings” to the same date that the pending felony had been adjourned to: November 9, 2017. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On November 9, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned “for scheduling a conference” to the same date that the pending felony had been adjourned to: December 18, 2017. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On December 18, 2017, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned to track the pending felony to the same date that the felony had been adjourned to: January 18, 2018. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On January 18, 2018, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this case was adjourned to the same date that the pending felony had been adjourned to: February 1, 2018. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On February 1, 2018 a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned to the same date that the pending felony was adjourned to: February 22, 2018. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On February 22, 2018, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and this matter was adjourned to the same date that the pending felony was adjourned to: March 1, 2018. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On March 1, 2018, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and the pending felony was reduced to a misdemeanor and both the reduced felony and the instant matter were adjourned for a pre-trial conference on April 16, 2018. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On April 16, 2018, a conference was held in the City of Newburgh Court and it was announced that a voted Indictment was filed in this case on April 11, 2018. The instant matter was thereafter transferred from the City of Newburgh Court to the Orange County Court. A Statement of Readiness dated April 16, 2018 was provided with the Indictment in this case. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.On April 23, 2018, the defendant was arraigned with counsel in Orange County Court before the undersigned. The defendant entered a not guilty plea, the matter was adjourned for motions with the People’s response due by June 7, 2018, and the matter was scheduled for a conference on July 11, 2018. As the People did not file their response to defendant’s omnibus motion until July 24, 2018, the Court finds that the post-readiness delay of 47 days between June 7, 2018 and July 24, 2018 is chargeable to the People.On July 11, 2018, a conference was held in the Orange County Court and the matter was adjourned (as the People had not yet submitted their response to defendant’s omnibus motion) to July 30, 2018. On July 27, 2018 a Decision and Order was issued with respect to defendant’s omnibus motion.On July 30, 2018, a conference was held in the Orange County Court and the matter was adjourned to August 31, 2018 for hearings. The Court finds that no additional time is chargeable to the People.Based upon the transcripts from the City of Newburgh Court, as well as the documents and submissions in the Court’s file, the Court finds that there are 57 days chargeable to the People. The Court notes that, “CPL 30.30 only ensures the People’s readiness and not a speedy trial” (People v. Chang, 176 AD2d 951 [2nd Dept., 1991] citing People v. McKenna, 76 NY2d 59, 62-63, 556 NY2d 514, 555 NE2d 911; People v. Sinistaj, 67 NY2d 236, 239, 501 NYS2d 793, 492 NE2d 1209; People v. Worley, 66 NY2d 523, 527, 498 NYS2d 116, 488 NY2d 1228; People v. Brothers, 50 NY2d 413, 417, 429 NYS2d 558, 407 NY2d 405.) “While prereadiness and postreadiness delays may be added together for purposes of determining whether the People have satisfied their obligations under CPL 30.30, postreadiness delays generally should not be charged to the People unless they have a direct relation to the People’s readiness or lack thereof (see, People v. McKenna, supra; People v. Anderson, 66 NY2d 529, 498 NYS2d 119, 488 NE2d 1231). Here the People had announced their readiness…well within the time afforded by CPL [30.30(1)(b)]” (People v. Chang, 176 AD2d 951, 952 [2nd Dept., 1991]). Further, there is no allegation that the People were not ready to proceed to trial on this misdemeanor charge. Rather, this misdemeanor case was repeatedly adjourned by the City of Newburgh Court to track the pending felony.The transcripts from the proceeding in the City of Newburgh are replete with references to a global resolution whereby the resolution of the felony case would have a bearing on how the instant misdemeanor would be resolved. Significantly, the City of Newburgh Court continued to adjourn the misdemeanor case to track the felony case,1 and the Court only set forth a trial schedule on the instant misdemeanor charge after the felony case was reduced. Defendant apparently was content with the misdemeanor case being adjourned to track the felony case, as the defendant never mentioned moving the instant misdemeanor to trial, despite the People having previously announced their readiness for trial.Finally, once the People had announced their readiness for trial, “they were under no obligation to repeat that declaration of readiness upon each appearance in court” (People v. Reid, 214 AD2d 396 [1st Dept., 1995] citing People v. Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 214, 590 NYS2d 9, 604 NE2d 7). Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL §30.30 must be denied.ADJOURNED DATEThis matter is scheduled for a hearing to be held on August 31, 2018 at 2:00 P.M. The defendant, defendant’s counsel, and District Attorney are directed to be present.The aforesaid constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.Dated: August, 2018Goshen, New York
