This case is not published in a printed volume and its disposition appears in a table in the reporter.
Defendant represented by Elliot Kay, Esq.
People represented by A.D.A. Allen Karen, Bronx County District Attorney's Office.
William I. Mogulescu, J.
The defendant, Juan Nunez, was charged by way of a felony complaint with assault in the first degree and related offenses. Defendant now moves to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he has been denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30.
CPL 30.30(1)(a) requires the dismissal of an accusatory instrument when the People are not ready for trial within six months of the commencement of the criminal action, in this case 181 days.
Based on the court papers and the motion papers the Court finds as follows:
On September 11, 2005, defendant was arraigned on the felony complaint and the matter was adjourned to October 18, 2005, pending grand jury action. As is now conceded by the People, this period is chargeable delay (37 days). See
People v. Stiles, 70 N.Y.2d 765 (1987).
On October 18, 2005, defendant was arraigned upon the indictment, the People stated that they were ready to proceed and the matter was adjourned to November 15, 2005. Counsel does not now challenge the excludability of this adjournment. This period is excludable.
On November 15, 2005, counsel indicated that he would waive motions. The People were not ready to proceed and requested that the matter be adjourned two weeks. The case was adjourned to January 30, 2006, for trial. The People now argue that this entire period is excludable because despite the fact that counsel waived motions counsel had filed two bills of particulars, dated October 27, 2005, and November 17, 2005.  This period is excludabe as the time attributable to motion practice, which includes requests for bill of particulars. CPL 30.30(4)(a).
On January 30, 2006, the People were not ready to proceed as the assigned assistant was on trial on another matter. The People requested that the matter be adjourned for two weeks; the case was adjourned to March 6, 2006. In this post-readiness posture, the People are charged until the date requested. People v. Cajigas, 224 A.D.2d 370 (1st Dept.), app. dismissed, 88 N.Y.2d 845 (1996);
People ex rel. Sykes v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d 466 (1st Dept. 1992). As is now conceded by the People, they are charged with this delay (14 days).
On March 6, 2006, the People were not ready to proceed. The matter was adjourned to April 7, 2006, for hearing and trial. The Court's notations indicate that the People requested a four week adjournment, and defendant's motion indicates likewise. However, the People now assert in their motion papers, without any support of any kind, that they requested a ten day adjournment and now concede that ten days are chargeable to them. The minutes of this adjournment have not yet been provided to the Court. At the least the People are charged with 10 days . People v. Cajigas, supra;
People ex rel. Sykes ...