Summary
In People v Purdy (29 N.Y.2d 800) the court in considering a 16-month delay declined to rely solely on the fact that indictments were being processed substantially to excuse the delay, but noted that the delays had been caused by defendant and his counsel.
Summary of this case from People v. HankinsOpinion
Argued October 18, 1971
Decided November 18, 1971
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, THOMAS DICKENS, J.
Jack Minoff for appellant.
Burton B. Roberts, District Attorney ( Robert M. Silverson, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Order affirmed in the following memorandum: Although there was a delay of 16 months between defendant's plea and his trial, during which he made three applications to dismiss for failure to prosecute, adjournments are shown by the record of proceedings in the trial court to have been due on two occasions to requests by appellant's lawyer for postponement because of other trial engagements and once due to a request for time to familiarize himself with the case immediately after assignment. Delays also are shown in the record to have been due to appellant's dissatisfaction with his retained lawyer and then with Legal Aid counsel which resulted, on his request, in successive assignments of counsel by the court. Thus, the policy of the District Attorney to prosecute cases in the order of their sequence, expressed in two of the affirmations opposed to motions for dismissal, is not the only ground for justifying denial of the motions. Appellant's constitutional and statutory rights have not been impaired by the course of proceedings.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.