People v. Wilson
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Linardos (Muttontown Justice Court 2017)
- People v. Foster (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2002)
- People v. Blancero (New York Supreme Court 2001)
- People v. Walls (Elijah) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- People v. Solito-Leon (Edwin) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Garai (Bela) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- People v. Chalupa (Jose) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Chin (Thomas) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Castro (William) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Reyes (Angel) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- People v. Ashe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- People v. Dauphin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Dauphin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Nelson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Sherman (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2009)
- People v. Rogers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Cole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- People v. Blancero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Cross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- People v. Brooks (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1999)
- People v. Lindsey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People v. Rice (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- People v. Sanchez (New York Supreme Court 1996)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant argues that the People violated his right to a speedy trial by failing to indicate readiness to proceed with his trial within "six months of the commencement of [defendant’s] criminal action” as required by CPL 30.30 (1) (a). The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s original conviction, remanded the case and ordered a new trial (156 AD2d 743). Subsequently, on defendant’s second appeal, the Appellate Division remitted the matter to County Court for a CPL 30.30 hearing (188 AD2d 671). After that hearing, defendant’s conviction was upheld a third and final time in the Appellate Division (207 AD2d 849). For purposes of defendant’s CPL 30.30 (1) (a) contention, the time must be measured from the date of the Appellate Division’s reversal of defendant’s first conviction, which occurred December 26, 1989. Defendant’s claim here must fail because the record indicates that the People announced their readiness on March 22, 1990, which was within the six-month period permitted under the statute. On that date, the People stated "we have been in contact with the victim. Our intentions are to go forward”. The prior courts determined that this statement sufficiently indicated the People’s readiness for trial, and we agree.
Our decision in People v Kendzia (64 NY2d 331) does not compel a different result. In Kendzia, we construed CPL 30.30 (1) (a) to require that the People (1) must communicate their state of readiness on the record and (2) must, in fact, be ready to proceed when they proclaim readiness. Regarding the second element in Kendzia, we stressed that CPL 30.30 requires actual readiness by the People, and "not a prediction or expectation of future readiness” (id., at 337). The first element *755 was satisfied by the People’s on-the-record oral communication to the court. The second element was satisfied here where the People had secured the complainant’s cooperation for retrial, possessed a valid accusatory instrument, and had produced defendant.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.