People v Rodiriguez (2007 NY Slip Op 50424(U))

People v Rodiriguez

2007 NY Slip Op 50424(U) [14 Misc 3d 1239(A)]

Decided on March 8, 2007

Criminal Court Of The City Of New York, Kings County

Nadelson, J.

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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPL 30.30 and People's Motion to Consolidate Pursuant to CPL 200.20

Defendant moves to dismiss Docket 2006KNO60061 alleging that more than 90 days have elapsed since Defendant was arraigned and the People are not ready for trial. The court denies this motion.

The 90th day was on January 18, 2007, when the People announced ready for trial at the first call. The matter was adjourned for a second call, and the People again announced ready for trial. The matter was again adjourned for a third call at 3.35 PM, by which time the ADA was called out to another part and therefore the People indicated that they were not ready. However, by the end of the day the court could not have found a trial judge and the People indicated that they wanted to file a motion to consolidate. When the People were told that the matter was not going to trial on that day, they requested one week to file the instant motion to consolidate. Defendant maintains that this week should be added to the ninety days that had already elapsed, but the court disagrees. Since the People were ready for trial on two calls for that day, and the court did not have a judge available for trial, the People cannot be charged for the adjournment, nor can they be charged for motion practice.

The People have also moved to consolidate the two actions, which the court grants.

Pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(b) the court may consolidate two or more cases even if the charges are based on different criminal transactions if proof of either offense would be material and admissible of proof of the other offense. CPL 200.20(2)(a) defines "criminal transaction" according to CPL 40.10, which in turn defines "criminal transaction" as "two or more or a group of acts... so closely related in criminal purpose or objective as to constitute elements or integral parts of a single criminal venture."

Defendant was charged under Docket 2006KNO84171 of violating an order of protection [*2]issued in favor of Kathleen Rodriguez which was issued by the court pursuant to the charges appearing in Docket 2006KNO60061.

In People v. Cherry, 4 Misc 3d 40 ( 2004), the court permitted the People to consolidate two informations in which one alleged domestic violence and the second information alleged a violation of an order of protection issued in favor of the complainant in the first information.

Defendant has failed to establish articulable prejudice in consolidating the instant two actions which involve alleged charges of domestic violence and a violation of a protective order issued for the same complainant. Evidence of one information would be admissible to demonstrate Defendant's intent and consciousness of guilt on the other charge. Therefore, in the interests of the efficient administration of justice and the failure of the court to find any undue prejudice, the court hereby consolidates the two above referenced dockets.