DECISION AND ORDER The defendant is charged with the class “A” misdemeanor of Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law §120.00 [1], the class “A” misdemeanor of Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation in the Third Degree (Penal Law §121.11[A]), the class “B” misdemeanor of Stalking in the Fourth Degree ( Penal Law §120.45 [1]) and two counts of the violation of Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law §240.26 [1] and [3]). He moves for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL§30.30 has been denied. The Court has read the defendant’s motion papers, the People’s response, has reviewed the Court file and finds as follows: Where, as herein, the accusatory instrument charges a defendant with a class “A” misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months (See, Penal Law §70.15[1][a]), the People are required to be ready for trial within ninety (90) days of the commencement of the action (CPL §30.30[1][b]). Readiness for trial pursuant to CPL §30.30 encompasses two requirements: (1) the People must communicate their readiness for trial, either in open court or by filing a written notice of readiness with the court and serving it upon the defendant’s attorney; and (2) the People must, in fact, be ready to proceed at the time of the declaration of readiness, rather than a “prediction or expectation of future readiness.” See, People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331, 337, 486 NYS2d 888 (1985). A defendant has the initial burden of asserting that the People’s “30.30 time” has expired. Thereupon, the burden switches to the People to demonstrate that certain periods within that time should be excluded pursuant to statutorily enumerated exemptions. See, CPL §30.30(4); People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861, 509 NYS2d 411 (1986). On April 1, 2019, the defendant was arraigned on a criminal court complaint. At his arraignment, the People were not ready as they still required the supporting deposition of Martha Taveres to convert the complaint into an information. The case was adjourned to May 1, 2019 for conversion. Accordingly, this time period, a total of thirty (30) days, is chargeable to the People. On May 1, 2019, the People filed a supporting deposition of Martha Taveres and the Court advised them that the supporting deposition did not comport with the requirements of CPLR 2101(b) because it did not have an affidavit from the translator. CPLR 2101(b) provides, Each paper served or filed shall be in the English language which, where practicable, shall be of ordinary usage. Where an affidavit or exhibit annexed to a paper served or filed is in a foreign language, it shall be accompanied by an English translation and an affidavit by the translator stating his qualifications and that the translation is accurate. The supporting deposition of Martha Taveres was not accepted by this Court because there was no name of the interpreter, just the identification number of 220358 and that he/she is employed by the AT&T Language Line Interpretation Service. There was no affidavit from the interpreter as to his/her qualifications, that he/she is fluent in English and Spanish, nor did the interpreter swear that the translation given to the complainant was accurate. The Assistant District Attorney instead submitted an affirmation dated May 1, 2019, stating that he was present during the language line translation and that through the use of the interpreter the complainant signed the supporting deposition in his presence. There was no affidavit that the Assistant District Attorney was fluent in Spanish language and could state that the translation was accurate from the interpreter. The case was adjourned until June 4, 2019 for conversion. This time period, a total of thirty-four (34) days is chargeable to the People. On May 17, 2019, a superseding information was filed and served. The Assistant District Attorney submitted an affirmation of translation dated May 17, 2019 stating that he was present during the language line translation from English to Spanish by Interpreter #218557. There was no affidavit submitted from the Assistant District Attorney that he was fluent in Spanish language and could state that the translation was accurate from interpreter #218557. There was also no affidavit from the interpreter as to his/her qualifications, that he/she was fluent in English and Spanish. Nor did the interpreter swear that the translation given to the complainant was accurate. Nor was there the name of the interpreter, just a number. nor an affidavit from the interpreter that. Moreover, while the Assistant District Attorney attests that on about May 7, 2019, the complainant through the use of an interpreter signed the supporting deposition in his presence, the supporting deposition of Martha Taveres is dated July 5, 2019. Thus, on this ground alone, the complaint was not converted into an information. The lower court case relied on by the People; People v. Maceda, 40 Misc 3d 1213(A), 975 NYS2d 711 (Queens Cty, 2013) is not binding, nor applicable since the supporting deposition of Martha Taveres is dated almost two months later. The Court relies on the higher authority and binding case of People v. Hernandez, 47 Misc 3d 51, 51-54 [App Term, 2nd Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015], which holds that where the complainant cannot fully understand English and needs a translator, a certificate of translation must be submitted to the Court. In the case herein, it is clear from the affidavit of the Assistant District Attorney that a language translator was used to aid the complainant. Contrary to the People’s assertions, CPLR 2101 applies to Criminal Court. As delineated in §22 NYCRR 200.3, Papers filed in a criminal court; form, In addition to complying with the applicable provisions of CPLR 2101, every paper filed in court, other than an exhibit or printed form, shall contain writing on one side only, and if typewritten, shall have at least double space between each line, except for quotations and the names and addresses of attorneys appearing in the action, and shall have at least one-inch margins. Accordingly, on this second ground, the supporting deposition submitted to the Court, without a certificate of translation that comports with the requirements of CPLR 2101 is deficient. On June 4, 2019, a Judge of coordinate jurisdiction overruled this Court and accepted the May 17, 2019 supporting deposition although it had the same defects as the supporting deposition filed before this Court on May 1, 2019; namely the supporting deposition was not accompanied from an affidavit from an interpreter that the interrupter was fluent in English and Spanish and the translation was accurate. More importantly, the date of the signed supporting deposition did not comport with the date of the Assistant District Attorney’s sworn affidavit. The People were advised by this Court on May 1, 2019, that the translation was defective and resubmitted the same thing with a wrong date. The case was adjourned until July 9, 2019 for discovery. As this Court is not bound by a court of coordinative jurisdiction, who did not acknowledge that this Court’s prior determination constituted the law of the case and was binding upon any judge of coordinate jurisdiction, this Court adheres to its original determination. See, People v. Johnson, 131 AD2d 696, 517 NYS2d 31, 517 NYS2d 31, 32 (App Div 2nd Dept 1987). For CPL §30.30 purposes, the docket remained unconverted on this date and the adjournment from June 4, 2019 until July 9, 2019, a total of thirty-five (35) days, is chargeable to the People. On July 9, 2019, the instant CPL §30.30 motion schedule established, and the case was adjourned until September 9, 2019. This time period is excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30(4)(a). The Court finds that a total of ninety-nine (99) days are chargeable to the People, which exceeds the ninety (90) day statutory requirement. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPL §30.30 is granted. The People are granted a thirty (30) day stay to file the certificate of translation. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: September 9, 2019 Kew Gardens, New York
