Preview:

People v Berger (2003 NY Slip Op 23961)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, December 12, 2003
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Leonard I. Ressler, Kew Gardens, for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt and Debra J. Kondel of counsel), for respondent.
{**2 Misc 3d at 47} OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
We reject defendant's contention that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b). After subtracting the periods of delay attributable to the adjournments for pretrial discovery (see CPL 30.30 [4] [a]; People v McCray, 238 AD2d 442 [1997]; People v Jones, 105 AD2d 179 [1984], affd 66 NY2d 529 [1985]), the time during which defendant was absent or unavailable and a bench warrant was issued (see CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]; People v Brown, 113 AD2d 812 [1985]), the unavailability of the complaining witness who resided outside of the country (see People v Zirpola, 57 NY2d 706 [1982]; People v Robbins, 223 AD2d 735 [1996]; People v Green, 90 AD2d 705 [1982]), the adjournment requested by defendant (see CPL 30.30 [4] [b]; People v Friscia, 51 NY2d 845 [1980]; People v Lee, 217 AD2d 637 [1995]), the adjournment following defendant's voluntary return after issuance of a bench warrant (see People v Muhanimac, 181 AD2d 464 [1992]; People v Degro, 141 Misc 2d 810 [1988]), and the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/2/2003_23961.htm[4/21/2013 1:13:39 PM] People v Berger (2003 NY Slip Op 23961)
periods of delay attributable to defendant's pretrial motion practice (see People v Singh, 288 AD2d 404 [2001]; People v Norris, 238 AD2d 608 [1997]), the People did not exceed the permitted 90

Download 2003_23961.pdf

New York Law