§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Earl Canady, Respondent.

Brief

48 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Jennings

    69 N.Y.2d 103 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 763 times
    In Jennings, the president of the insured (Sentry) received a check from Sentry's insurer to cover payments owed to the Sentry's clients as a result of losses incurred when the Sentry's warehouse was robbed.

  2. People v. Cortes

    80 N.Y.2d 201 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 481 times
    In People v Cortes (80 N.Y.2d 201[1992], the Court of Appeals charged the People with delay based upon the unavailability of an attorney from the 18-B Assigned Defender Plan.

  3. People v. Anderson

    66 N.Y.2d 529 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 380 times
    Stating that C.P.L. § 30.30, setting forth time limitations in which People must be ready for trial, addresses only problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a "Speedy Trial" statute in the constitutional sense

  4. People v. Stirrup

    91 N.Y.2d 434 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 166 times
    Stating that criminal court obtains personal jurisdiction over defendant upon filing of accusatory instrument and defendant's appearance in court

  5. People v. Sinistaj

    67 N.Y.2d 236 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 222 times
    In People v Sinistaj (67 N.Y.2d 236), the Court of Appeals held that when a subsequent indictment is "related back" to the commencement of the proceeding, the exclusions applicable under CPL 30.30 (4) are "related back" as well.

  6. People v. Carter

    91 N.Y.2d 795 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 155 times
    In Carter, the court considered the implications of sending a statement of readiness to the wrong address for three defendants and found that the prosecution had attempted to notify the defendants at their last known address and "[i]n the absence of proof that the readiness statement did not accurately reflect the People's position or that the mailing was made in bad faith, the People had discharged their duty under CPL 30.30" (seeCarter at 799, 676 N.Y.S.2d 523, 699 N.E.2d 35 [emphasis added]).

  7. People v. Sibblies

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 2377 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 94 times
    Holding statement of readiness invalid in light of People's subsequent statement of unreadiness based on the need to obtain medical records

  8. People v. Chavis

    91 N.Y.2d 500 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 139 times
    In People v. Chavis (91 N.Y.2d 500, 506), the Court again noted that "the People were able to toll the `speedy trial clock' by filing a notice of readiness".

  9. People v. Nieves

    67 N.Y.2d 125 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 195 times
    In Nieves, as in Tates, the theory argued by the People on appeal had been expressly disclaimed by the prosecutor during the evidentiary hearing (see People v Nieves, 67 N.Y.2d at 129-130).

  10. People v. Osgood

    52 N.Y.2d 37 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 212 times
    Holding that the speedy trial clock did not start anew with the filing of indictment of charges directly derived from the previous complaint, which was dismissed on speedy trial grounds