[*1]
People v Bridgelal (Gangaram)
2005 NY Slip Op 51473(U) [9 Misc 3d 127(A)]
Decided on September 16, 2005
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on September 16, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: September 16, 2005 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-727 S CR

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

against

Gangaram Bridgelal, Appellant.


Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Steven A. Lotto, J.), rendered May 17, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of public lewdness and endangering the welfare of a child.


Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.

The information, together with the supporting deposition of Renee Brittman, was legally sufficient in that it contained nonhearsay allegations adequately descriptive of defendant's identity so as to establish his commission of the crimes charged (see CPL 100.15, 100.40 [1]; People v Cha Kim Son, 4 Misc 3d 1007[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50755[U] [Mount Vernon City Ct]). In any event, defendant's sworn statement to the police which was attached to, and made a part of, the information established the legal sufficiency of the information even though the statement was deemed inadmissible at trial (see People v Gordon, 88 NY2d 92 [1996]).

Furthermore, the criminal action, for speedy trial purposes, is deemed to have commenced on the date defendant withdrew his guilty plea (see CPL 30.30 [5] [a]; People v Lebron, 211 AD2d 208 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 891 [1996]; People v Hutchenson, 136 AD2d 737 [1988]). Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea was granted by the court on May 3, 2004, the same day on which he moved to dismiss the information based on speedy trial grounds and the day the trial began. Accordingly, there is no time chargeable to the People. In light of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to disturb the judgment of conviction.
Decision Date: September 16, 2005