Defendant Raymond Binns, charged with one count of Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals [Agriculture and Markets Law §353], Menacing in the Third Degree [Penal Law §120.15] and related charges, moves, by notice of motion dated April 22, 20221 to dismiss the accusatory instrument pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(b) and CPL 170.30(e). The Court finds that 119 chargeable days have elapsed since the commencement of the case, which exceeds the allowable time for a class A misdemeanor, therefore, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Background and Procedural History Mr. Binns was arrested on October 12, 2021 following the execution of a search warrant of his home associated with allegations of animal abuse and neglect. He was given a desk appearance ticket returnable on November 1, 2021. On November 1, 2021, Mr. Binns was arraigned on four counts each of Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals and Failure to provide proper food and drink to impounded animal, and one count each of Menacing in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct. Following an initial set of short adjournments and the conclusion of a hearing pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law §373(6), on November 16, 2021, the case was adjourned for a supporting deposition to December 14, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the complaint was deemed an information and the case was adjourned for trial to January 7, 2022. On January 7, 2022, the People stated that they were ready for trial at 2:15 PM that day, however the People were unable to specifically confirm the availability of trial witnesses. Additionally, although the People stated that they had served discovery upon the Defense and filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and certificate of readiness (COR) with the Court, the Defense stated that they had not received those filings and the People presented no independent proof of their filings. The Defense also lodged their objection to the People’s discovery disclosure, arguing that there were items missing. The case was adjourned for trial to February 2, 2022. On February 2, 2022, the People were not ready for trial and the case was adjourned for trial to March 1, 2022. On February 28, 2022, off-calendar, via the Electronic Document Delivery Service (EDDS), the People filed with the Court and served on the Defense a list of discovery disclosures, an Automatic Discovery Form (ADF), a “supplemental” COC and a COR. On March 1, 2022, the People answered ready for trial, stating in court that they had also filed additional discovery, a COC and COR off-calendar on February 4, 2022. However, the Court is not in receipt of these documents and there is no independent proof that they were in fact filed with the Court. On March 1, 2022, the Defense requested a motion schedule and the case was adjourned for decision to April 22, 2022. On April 22, 2022, the Defense filed the instant motion to dismiss and the case was adjourned for decision to June 16, 2022. On May 9, 2022, the People filed a response off-calendar and on June 9, 2022, the Defense filed a reply off-calendar. On June 16, 2022, the defendant did not appear in court and on June 21, 2022, a bench warrant was ordered. On August 24, 2022, the warrant was vacated and the case adjourned for decision again to September 22, 2022. Discussion Mr. Binns is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months and none of which is a felony. Accordingly, the People are required to be ready for trial within 90 days from the commencement of the criminal action, less any excludable time. CPL 30.30(1)(b). Although commencement of a criminal action begins at the arraignment, computation for speedy trial purposes begins on the next day. People v. Stiles, 70 NY2d 765 (1987). Once a defendant has alleged that an excess of the allowable time has elapsed, the burden shifts to the People to demonstrate whether any periods are to be excluded from the calculation, such that the allowable time has not elapsed. People v. Santos, 68 NY2d 859 (1986); People v. Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333 (1980). Mr. Binns argues that 119 days of includable time have elapsed since the commencement of the action. The People contend that only 45 chargeable days have elapsed.2 The People are deemed “ready for trial” when they either 1) communicate their actual readiness in open court or 2) file a certificate of readiness with the court and serve a copy on defense counsel. People v. Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 (1985). The Court of Appeals held that there must be a contemporaneous communication of readiness and that the People must communicate readiness for trial when the People are in fact ready to proceed. Id. at 336-337 [citing, People v. Hamilton, 46 NY2d 932 (1979); People v. Brothers, 50 NY2d 413 (1980)]. As of January 1, 2020, any statement of trial readiness also must be accompanied or preceded by a certificate of compliance with the discovery disclosure requirements mandated by CPL 245.20. CPL 30.30(5). Once the People have met their discovery obligation, they “shall serve upon the defendant and file with the court a certificate of compliance” which “ shall state that, after exercising due diligence and making reasonable inquiries to ascertain the existence of material and information subject to discovery, the prosecutor has disclosed and made available all known material and information subject to discovery.” CPL 245.50(1) (emphasis added). Furthermore, “absent an individualized finding of special circumstances in the instant case by the court before which the charge is pending, the prosecution shall not be deemed ready for trial for purposes of section 30.30 of this chapter until it has filed a proper certificate pursuant to subdivision one of this section.” CPL 245.50(3) (emphasis added). The defendant’s position is that the People’s discovery disclosures from November 6, 2021 to February 28, 2022 were inadequate, resulting in their failure to file valid COC’s and to validly answer ready for trial. He objects to the People’s practice of serving batches of discovery electronically via “eDiscovery,” each one followed by a COC and COR, also served via “eDiscovery.” The defendant asks this Court to invalidate each COC and COR served upon them prior to February 28, 2022, the date Defense contends that the People were finally in compliance with their discovery obligations. The People respond that they turned over large amounts of discovery in several rounds, beginning on November 6, 2021, followed by a COC after each round, and that on January 3, 2022, along with a large discovery packet served on the defense, their first COR was filed. The People also respond that although they did serve additional discovery upon the defense on several subsequent dates, their supplemental COC’s should not be invalidated as the delay was caused by the material not being in their possession.3 After reviewing all of the People’s discovery disclosures, the Court finds that the People were not substantially in compliance with their discovery obligations prior to February 28, 2022. Of note, this is also the date that the People first properly filed a COC with the court through EDDS. Although the majority of the arguments presented on both sides in the instant motion pertain to discovery disputes and their effect on the validity of the People’s COC’s and COR’s, this Court does not deem this to be the dispositive issue for purposes of the instant motion. In this Court’s view, what is dispositive is that prior to February 28, 2022, the People had not followed proper filing mandates.4 Without such proper filing, the People’s statements of readiness prior to February 28, 2022 cannot be deemed valid. It follows then that any statements of readiness made prior to that date are also invalid. Additionally, the People’s in-court statement of readiness on January 7, 2022 may not have been accepted by the Court, as the record reflects that after a CPL 30.30(5) inquiry5 the Court notated that the People’s responses may not have been adequate to substantiate their actual readiness for trial.6 Interestingly, even if the Court were to credit the People’s in-court statement of readiness made on January 7, 2022, they still had not filed a proper COC with the Court, therefore they cannot be deemed ready as of that date. In their response, the People highlight all discovery and COC/COR filing dates upon the defense. However, they state that these disclosures and documents were sent via eDiscovery. This Court reached out to the People during the consideration of this motion, and the People were unable to verify that any COC’s or COR’s had been properly filed with the Court through EDDS prior to February 28, 2022, nor did they provide this Court with hard copies. Accordingly, the speedy trial clock was not tolled until February 28, 2022, and for these reasons the Court finds that 119 days of chargeable time have elapsed, which exceeds the allowable 90 days for a class A misdemeanor. Therefore, the information must be dismissed pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(b) and CPL 170.30(1)(e). Consequently, the Court makes the following speedy trial calculations with respect to each adjournment: November 1, 2021 — November 12, 2021 The case was arraigned and adjourned for a bond hearing, pursuant to AM 373(6). Both sides agree that this time period is chargeable to the People. 11 days are charged. November 12, 2021 — November 16, 2021 The case was adjourned again for the bond hearing. Both sides agree that this time period is chargeable. 4 days are charged. November 16, 2021 — December 14, 2021 The bond hearing was held and the case was adjourned for the People to provide a supporting deposition. Both sides agree that this time period is chargeable. 28 days are charged. December 14, 2021 — January 7, 2022 The complaint was deemed an information and the case was adjourned for trial. This time period is chargeable. 24 days charged. January 7, 2022 — February 2, 2022 On January 7, 2022, the People stated that they were ready for trial at 2:15 that afternoon, however, as discussed above, because the People had not filed a COC with the Court, they cannot be deemed ready for trial. Accordingly, this time period is chargeable. 26 days charged. February 2, 2022 — March 1, 2022 On February 2, 2022, the People were not ready for trial and the case was adjourned to March 1, 2022. On February 28, 2022, off-calendar, the People filed with the Court a “supplemental” COC, a COR, a list of discovery disclosures made to the defense, and an ADF. The Court having reviewed the People’s discovery disclosures deems them to be in compliance with CPL 245.20 as of February 28, 2022, therefore, in combination with their COR, the speedy trial clock was tolled as of February 28, 2022. As such, during this time period, 26 days are charged. March 1, 2022 — April 22, 2022 On March 1, 2022, the People were ready for trial. The Defense requested a motion schedule, which the Court provided, and the case was adjourned for decision to April 22, 2022. This time period is excludable. CPL 30.30(4)(a). 0 days are charged. April 22, 2022 — June 16, 2022 On April 22, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss, and the case was adjourned again for decision to June 16, 2022. On May 9, 2022, the People filed their response off-calendar and on June 9, 2022, Defendant filed a reply off-calendar. This time period is excludable. CPL 30.30(4)(a). 0 days are charged. June 16, 2022 — June 21, 2022; June 21, 2022 — August 24, 2022 On June 16, 2022, Defendant did not appear and a bench warrant was stayed until June 21, 2022. On June 21, 2022, a bench warrant was ordered. This time period is excludable. CPL 30.30(4)(c)(ii). 0 days charged. August 24, 2022 — September 22, 2022 Defendant returned and the warrant was vacated. The case was adjourned for decision on the previously filed motions. This adjournment is excludable as a period during which motions were under consideration by the Court. CPL 30.30(4)(a). 0 days are charged. By the Court’s calculation, the total includable speedy trial time amounts to 119 days, exceeding the 90-days permitted for a class A misdemeanor. Conclusion For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that 119 chargeable days have elapsed since the commencement of the case, and therefore, the People have exceeded their allowable speedy trial time. Accordingly, Mr. Binns’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPL 30.30(1)(b) and CPL 170.30(e) is GRANTED. This opinion constitutes the decision and Order of the Court. Dated: September 21, 2022
