Category Archives: App. Term 2d Dept.

AT1 & AT2 – New Decisions

There are new decisions from the First Appellate Term and the Second Appellate Term.  (LC)

New Decisions

There are new decisions from nearly every court!

First, the Court of Appeals (summaries of these will be posted later this week):

  • People v. Dreyden (Ct. App. 6/15/2010) (Pigott, J.) (6-1) – accusatory instrument deficient if it does not demonstrate how a knife is a "gravity knife"
  • People v. Mitchell (Ct. App. 6/15/2010) (Read, J.) (7-0) – transfer of case for probation supervision does not transfer authority to decide 440 motion 
  • People v. Ballman (Ct. App. 6/10/2010) (Lippman, C.J.) (7-0) – elevation of DWI for out of state conviction prior to 2006
  • People v. McLean (Ct. App. 6/10/2010) (Smith, J.) (4-3) – preservation of right to counsel violation claim
  • People v. Frederick (Ct. App. 6/10/2010) (7-0) – retrial issues

There are also new decisions from the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Departments, along with the Second Appellate Term.  (LC)

AT2 – New Decisions

There are new decisions from the Second Appellate Term, including an interesting case where the court rejected an Anders brief.

AT2 reverses 30.30 grant

In pre-readiness, discovery periods are typically excludable.  However, since the delay must be "reasonable," CPL § 30.30(4), the People can be charged with the time if they drag their proverbial feet in providing the defense with discovery.  In post-readiness, however, the calculation is different. 

In People v. Cecala (2d App. Term 5/5/2010), the local criminal court dismissed the misdemeanor prosecution on 30.30 grounds after the People failed to meet several discovery deadlines. However, the delay all occurred after the People had made an effective statement of readiness.  Thus, the delay was due to the People's "alleged failure to comply with the defendant's discovery demands and
did not pose an impediment to commencement of the trial itself" and thus "the
[Criminal] Court erred in dismissing the [accusatory instrument] rather
than imposing a less severe sanction" (quoting People v. Caussade, 162 AD2d 4, 11 [1990]).  (LC)

AD1, AD2, AD3, & AT2 – New Decisions

There are new decisions from the First, Second, and Third Departments, as well as the Second Appellate Term.  (LC)