Justice Court of the Village of Muttontown, Nassau County
J. Mullaney, Esq., Leventhal, Mullaney & Blinkoff, LLP,
for the People
Anthony DeCarolis, Esq, for Defendant Pericles Linardos
E. Macy, Associate Village Justice
matter is before this court pursuant to the order of the
Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the 9th and 10th
Judicial Districts dated April 7, 2017 and which reversed the
court's order, (Mass, J.) dated August 4, 2014, and which
found the Defendant guilty after trial of violating seven
counts of the Code of the Incorporated Village of Muttontown
of permitting the cutting of an oak tree with a caliber of
more than seven inches without a permit and which further
denied, without a hearing, defendant's motion to dismiss
the accusatory instrument on speedy trial grounds (C.P.L.
30.30). Pursuant to decision and order the Appellate Term
remitted the matter to this court for a new trial and to
afford the defendant the opportunity to make a written
pretrial motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument on
speedy trial grounds. On April 17, 2017 the defendant filed
his motion with this court (the "Motion").
this Motion, the court has considered the decision and order
of the Appellate Term for the 9th and 10th Judicial Districts
dated April 7, 2017, the defendant's motion including,
the affirmation of Anthony DeCarolis, Esq affirmed on April
13, 2017, the affidavit of defendant Pericles Linardos sworn
to on April 13, 2017, and each of the exhibits annexed in
support of the Motion and the defendant's memorandum of
law in support of his motion. The court has further
considered the affirmation in opposition of Thomas J.
Mullaney, dated May 11, 2017 and the exhibits annexed
thereto, together with the People's memorandum of law in
opposition to the Motion. The court has further reviewed the
file in this action and the decision and order of Judge Mass.
dated August 4, 2014, with respect to the procedural history
of this matter.
matter before the court on this Motion has an extended
history in this heavily contested litigation. The court will
set forth the history of this matter to the extent that it is
necessary to a determination of the issues on this
in this matter was charged with seven counts of violating
Local Law 5 of 2006 of the Laws of the Incorporated Village
of Muttontown as codified in Village Code 172-3A(1) in that
it is alleged that the defendant permitted the cutting down
of seven large oak trees without a permit.
February 14, 2013 the defendant appeared pro se before the
Muttontown Village Justice Court, at which time he was
arraigned before the Hon. Martin Kaminsky, Village Justice.
The defendant contends that at the time of arraignment the
People did not state that they were ready to proceed to
trial. Nevertheless, the record reveals that the People did
request that the Court schedule a trial date.
COURT: How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?
DEFENDANT: I would like to see it dismissed.
COURT: What you are going to do is plead not guilty and talk
to the prosecutor and see if you can convince them further or
first about it. If so, then you will present a proposal to
PRICE: At this time the People would mark the matter for
COURT: You don't want to discuss it at all?
PRICE: There is no dismissal on this one.
Court than inquired of the defendant whether he desired to
make a motion. In sum and substance, defendant advised the
Court that he was moving to dismiss the accusatory instrument
on the grounds that he was not properly served and upon the
grounds that V.O. 172-3(A) does not require a permit for the
cutting down of trees where necessary to address an imminent
peril to life or property. (Decision and Order dated August