From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Schaffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 24, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the judgment under Indictment No. 604/91 is affirmed, and the case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5); and it is further,

Ordered that judgment under Indictment No. 1655/91 is reversed, on the law, and that indictment is dismissed; no questions of fact were raised or considered.

With one exception, we reject the individual defendant's contentions that the charges against him, contained in two separate indictments were "directly derived" from two, prior-filed felony complaints (cf., People v. Osgood, 52 N.Y.2d 37, 43; CPL 1.20).

A review of the record reveals that the felony complaint and the subsequently-filed Indictment No. 604/91 alleged separate and distinct criminal transactions (cf., People v. Osgood, supra; see, People v. Murray, 127 A.D.2d 704). Accordingly, for the purposes of assessing the People's compliance with their speedy-trial obligations (CPL 30.30), the instant criminal action was commenced upon the filing of the indictment (see, People v Murray, supra, at 705). Since the People announced their readiness for trial within six months of the filing of the indictment, the People complied with the requirements of CPL 30.30 (1) (a).

As to the sole count of Indictment No. 1655/91 of which the defendant was convicted, which charged the individual defendant with illegal possession of a vehicle identification number, the People concede, and the record demonstrates, that this count was directly derived from charges contained in the original felony complaints. When the commencement of the criminal action with respect to this count is measured from the date the felony complaints were filed, the People's statement of readiness was untimely, thereby requiring dismissal of that count as against the individual defendant.

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Schaffer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Schaffer

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PHILIP J. SCHAFFER…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 24, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 695 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 8

Citing Cases

People v. Sant

Counts three through six charge the defendant with crimes based upon acts alleged to have occurred on…

People v. Perkins

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing…