It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Decided and Entered: July 30, 2026

Ind No. 71715/23|71715/23|Appeal No. 6746|Case No. 2025-01910|

Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Guy H. Mitchell, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2025, which granted the People's motion for reargument of defendant's CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment, and upon reargument, adhered to a prior order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 18, 2024, which granted defendant's motion, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendant's motion denied, the indictment reinstated, and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings. Appeal from order, entered on or about July 18, 2024, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal taken from the order entered on or about January 23, 2025.

The court should have denied defendant's CPL 30.30 motion to dismiss the indictment. The court should not have charged the People for the 98-day period during which codefendant delayed serving a copy of his omnibus motion on the People. This time is excludable as time attributed to "pretrial motions," including "the period during which such matters are under consideration by the court" (CPL 30.30[4][a]; see People v Blue, 42 NY3d 584, 597 [2024], cert denied — US — , 145 S Ct 2778 [2025]).

The court likewise should have excluded the 42-day period between the date of its decision on codefendant's omnibus motion and the date on which the matter was adjourned for the People to file their certificate of compliance (COC) on December 15, 2023. The People were entitled to "reasonable time to prepare for hearings and trial after the court's rulings on [the co]defendant's omnibus motion" (People v Miller, 222 AD3d 599, 599 [1st Dept 2023], lv denied 41 NY3d 1003 [2024]; see also People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200, 209-210 [2023]).

The parties agree that the court properly charged the People with the 76-day period between the adjournment on December 15, 2023 and defendant's counsel's submission of an affirmation requesting an adjournment on February 28, 2024. However, the court should have charged only 75 days, excluding the first day of the period, consistent with General Construction Law § 20 (see People v Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 [1987]).

Lastly, the six-day period between February 28, 2024 and the People's COC filing on March 5, 2024 is not chargeable to the People since defense counsel sought an adjournment because he was unavailable to attend defendant's February 28, 2024 court appearance (see People v Pike, 228 AD3d 886, 887 [2d Dept 2024]). Additionally, the court should not have charged the People 30 days from March 5, 2024—when they filed a COC and statement of readiness (SOR)—to the scheduled adjournment date of April 3, 2024. The court did not find that the COC was improper, or that the SOR was illusory, and thus, the related periods were properly excludable (see CPL 245.50[3]). The People were therefore chargeable with only 97 days out of a possible 183 days.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: July 30, 2026

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.