From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Crew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 17, 1986
121 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

July 17, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Brenda Soloff, J., John Leonforte, J.


As the People readily concede, the court erred in denying defendant's CPL 30.30 motion solely on the ground that the People had, within six months of the commencement of the proceeding, answered ready. In so ruling, the court failed to consider the periods of delay that occurred after the People initially declared their readiness. (See, People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529.) Since the People never had a formal opportunity to respond to the motion, there is no record for appellate review. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on the motion and disposition thereof.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Asch, Fein, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Crew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 17, 1986
121 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

People v. Crew

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HAROLD CREW, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 17, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 921 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

People v. Shannon

Accordingly, the appeal is held in abeyance and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further hearing…

People v. Richardson

This initial notice of readiness preserves for the People the unexpired portion of the readiness period that…