People v. RousePeople v. Rouse
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.
When a defendant is accused of a felony offense,
The People contend that the 30-day time period from October 5, 2004 to November 4, 2004 was properly chargeable to defendant because her codefendant was “without counsel.” We disagree. Substitute counsel was appointed to codefendant at the conclusion of the October 5, 2004 calendar call, and thus codefendant had counsel during the adjournment period requested by the People. Nor does
Accordingly, because the People did not satisfy their statutory readiness obligation, the motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to
Acting Chief Judge Ciparick and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.