New York Lawyer Susan Chana Lask :: NY Criminal Defense Legal Form

CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People of the State of New York AFFIRMATION

SUBMITTING TRANSCRIPTS

-against- Docket No. 2002NY075324

JOHN DOE, Part C

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO: SAM SMITH, Esq., Assistant District Attorney of New York County, and to the Clerk of the

Criminal Court:

STATE OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

SUSAN CHANA LASK, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of this State, affirms the following to be true under penalties of perjury:

1. I am a member of the Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask, attorneys for the defendant.

2. On October 2, 2003 (See Exhibit "I", p.7:4-6) the court ordered the People to provide all transcripts to determine Defendant's 30.30 motion. Defendant ordered the transcripts on an expedited basis and provides every transcript of these proceedings to the court today, October 17, 2003, to assist it's review before the next October 20, 2003 jury part return date.

3. Defendant submits the following attached documents:

(a) A summary of the transcripts with supporting law to assist the court;

(b) Exhibit "A": October 27, 2003 Arraignment

(d) Exhibit "C": December 5, 2003 Corroborating Affidavit, Discovery Schedule &

Huntley scheduled for 1/23

(e) Exhibit "D": January 23, 2003 People's Discovery Responses Due,

People Not Ready for Huntley; Court

sets another Motion date

(f) Exhibit "E": March 12, 2003 People Not Ready for Huntley nor provided Court Ordered response to Motion

(g) Exhibit "F": April 24, 2003 Motion Issues

(h) Exhibit "G" June 2, 2003 Decision on Motion-8/18 Huntley Ordered

(i) Exhibit "H" August 18, 2003 People Not Ready for Huntley

(j) Exhibit "I" October 2, 2003 30.30 Submitted

WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully prays for an Order granting a dismissal of this case pursuant to CPL 30.30 and for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York ______________________________

October 17, 2003 Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask

853 Broadway, Suite 1516
New York, New York 10003

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Docket No. 2002NY075324 Part C

CRIMINAL COURT: CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People of the State of New York

-against-

JOHN DOE, Defendant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

__________________________________

DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSION OF ALL TRANSCRIPTS

____________________________

LAW OFFICES OF

SUSAN CHANA LASK

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

853 Broadway, Suite 1516

New York, New York 10003

( 212) 358-5762

____________________________

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss.:

I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State and in good standing affirm under penalty of perjury that I am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and have offices at 853 Broadway, Suite 1516, NYC, 10003. On October 17, 2003 I served the within :

--------personally upon:

SAM SMITH, Esq., Assistant District Attorney of New York County, and to the Clerk of the

Criminal Court, One Hogan Place, New York, NY 10013

__________________________

SUSAN CHANA LASK, ESQ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People of the State of New York

DEFENDANT'S TRANSCRIPT

SUMMARY

-against- Docket No. 2002NY075324

JOHN DOE, Part C

Defendant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30.30 CALENDAR (REVISED ACCORDING TO TRANSCRIPTS)

DATE ACTION TRANSCRIPT

10/27/02: Arraignment

11/14/02 People ordered to corroborate (*Transcript wrongly lists "11")

12/5/02 Adjourned to 1/23/2003 for Exhibit "C", 3:8-9 "THE COURT: Huntley/Dunaway &

discovery Huntley/Dunaway is ordered. The

Schedule set case is adjourned for hearing

January 23rd part C."

TIME CHARGED: People concede to ......................................................... 21 days

1/23/03 People arrive not ready for Exhibit "D", 2:14 "PEOPLE: The people

ordered hearing stating only are consenting to a

Huntley/Dunaway their consent Hearing"

The court found People's Exhibit "D", 3:14-16 THE COURT: "How

Discovery unreliable, questioning has it been

since--this case was converted since

their lateness November 14th..."

Exhibit "D", 4:5-6"THE COURT: ...there are 3 lines missing.

It is unreliable."

Court scheduled 3/12 Huntley Exhibit "D",4:16 "THE COURT...March

12th; discovery, response and hearing...".

UNCHARGED TIME FOR DISCOVERY: 12/6-1/23............................................ 46 days

3/12/03 People were not ready for Huntley Exhibit "E", 2:8 "MR KOWELL: People are

not ready for hearing today."

Exhibit "E", 6:6-8"THE COURT: Mr. Kowel, Iordered

last time that the hearing was for today

that, and also that discovery should be given."

Court reprimanded People for Exhibit "E" 11:5-6"THE COURT:Mr. Kowell

Failing to respond to motion I have no response on this other motion."

& People failed to provide excuse

TIME CHARGED: 1/24-3/12....................................................... 48 days

4/24 Court put over to 6/2 for time to (chargeable time per law below)

review

6/2 Third Huntley scheduled for 8/18 Exhibit "G" 5:12 "THE COURT: August 18th for the hearing.

8/18 People not ready Exhibit "H" 2:7 "MR. PUZIO: Your Honor, the

People are not ready for the hearing."

TIME CHARGED 6/3-8/18............................................................... 83 days

8/20 People's Certificate of Readiness ........................................... 2 days

There are three issues here, discovery and motion delays, the suppression hearings and the courts own April 24, 2003 adjournment. The law supports that all are charged to the people. As discovery and motion delays are addressed in the October 2, 2003 papers and the leading case People v. Anderson, 66 N.Y.2d 529, 498 N.Y.S.2d 119, 488 N.E.2d 1231 (1985) holds a prosecutor's pre-readiness delay in providing discovery and responding to motions, beyond that which was reasonable is chargeable time, then the other two issues are addressed below as follows:

In this case the people were not ready for a 1/23, 3/12 and 8/18 suppression hearing. The people also failed to respond to motions without excuse and the court was required to sua sponte put the case over on April 24 to review briefs regarding the People's non-responsiveness. This department in People v. Simpkins, 748 N.Y.S.2d 445, 193 Misc.2d 447, 2002 N.Y. Slip Op. 22684 (1st Dept,2002) agreed with the criminal court's reasoning that the People's inability to go forward with a suppression hearing is an insurmountable block to proceeding to trial and there is no better way to handle that in the course of a 30.30 motion than to charge the People with that time. The Appellate Court in Simpkins noted that even a pre-readiness adjournment by the court sua sponte, not requested by the people, is chargeable to the People. (See People v. Meierdiercks, 68 N.Y.2d 613, 615, 505 N.Y.S.2d 51, 496 N.E.2d 210 (1986); People ex rel. Sykes v. Mitchell, 184 A.D.2d 466, 467-68, 586 N.Y.S.2d 937 (1st Dep't 1992)). Simpkins stated that "This rule does not mean, however, that the people could not either toll the trial readiness period, by filing a notice of their readiness. In People v. Smith, 82 N.Y.2d 676, 601 N.Y.S.2d 466, 619 N.E.2d 403 (Ct of Appeals, 1993) held that the People are charged with all time incurred as set by the court, no matter if they wanted a short adjournment, provided Defendant never consented to an adjournment. Defendant never requested nor consented to any adjournments in this case and the transcripts reveal that each date the defendant stood ready to proceed with the suppression hearings, as well as made a record of its objections to the People's chronic adjournments and delays.

CONCLUSION

The People have unreasonably and without excuse allowed 30.30 time to expire.

Dated: New York, New York ______________________________

October 17 ,2003 Law Offices of Susan Chana Lask

853 Broadway, Suite 1516 New York, New York 10003
(212) 358-5762