216 A.D.3d 1178
N.Y. App. Div.2023Background
- Felony complaint filed against Angel Fuentes on September 18, 2020.
- Defendant was arraigned on the indictment on November 29, 2021.
- Fuentes moved to dismiss under CPL 30.30(1)(a), claiming the People were not ready within the six-month speedy-trial period (counting from the complaint).
- The People argued Executive Order No. 202.87 tolled CPL 30.30 for the period of December 30, 2020–January 25, 2021, so those 25 days were not chargeable.
- County Court granted Fuentes’s motion, charging 192 days to the People and dismissing the indictment.
- The Appellate Division reversed: it held the Executive Order tolled CPL 30.30 from filing of a felony complaint through arraignment, so the 25 days were excluded, the six-month limit was not exceeded, and the indictment was reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Executive Order No. 202.87 tolled CPL 30.30 time for the period from filing of a felony complaint through arraignment (specifically Dec 30, 2020–Jan 25, 2021) | EO 202.87 tolled the speedy‑trial statute; the 25 days are not chargeable | Time was chargeable to the People; total exceeded six months, so dismissal required | EO 202.87 tolled the period; 25 days excluded; total chargeable time did not exceed six months; motion to dismiss denied and indictment reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sinistaj, 67 N.Y.2d 236 (Ct. App.) (establishes six‑month readiness requirement under CPL 30.30)
- People v. Connell, 185 A.D.3d 1048 (App. Div. 2d Dept.) (applies and reiterates CPL 30.30 readiness rule)
- People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695 (Ct. App.) (explains limits on appellate reviewability of alternative grounds)
- People v. Byrd, 96 A.D.3d 962 (App. Div. 2d Dept.) (same principle on reviewability of alternative arguments)