Appeal from an order of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Norman St. George, J.), dated May 14, 2007. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments on the ground that defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]).

Order reversed on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b) denied, accusatory instruments reinstated and matter remanded to the court below for all further proceedings.

Defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instruments on the ground that he was denied his right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b). The court below granted said motion, finding that 102 days were chargeable to the People. On appeal, with regard to said finding, the People only take issue with the two adjournments that occurred between December 11, 2006 and February 13, 2007.

On December 11, 2006, the People stated that they were not ready for trial since their material witness had accompanied his wife to her chemotherapy session. The court adjourned the case until January 30, 2007. In the interim, on December 21, 2006, the People filed a statement of readiness with the court. At the next adjourned date of January 30, 2007, the People again stated that they were not ready for trial since their witness had once again accompanied his wife to her chemotherapy session and the court adjourned the case until February 13, 2007.

In its decision, the court below stated that since the court was closed at the end of December 2006, the People would not be charged from December 21, 2006 until January 8, 2007 but would be charged for the 22-day period from January 8, 2007 until January 30, 2007. Contrary to the court's decision, once the People filed a statement of readiness on December 21, 2006, the speedy trial clock was tolled from December 21, 2006 until January 30, 2007 (see People v Stirrup, 91 NY2d 434 [1998]; People v Douglas, 264 AD2d 671 [1999]). Thus, the [*2]court below improperly charged the People with the 22-day period from January 8, 2007 to January 30, 2007. The fact that the People stated that they were not ready on the subsequent adjourned date of January 30, 2007, after they had filed their statement of readiness on December 21, 2006, did not make their statement of readiness illusory (see People v Robinson, 171 AD2d 475 [1991]).

Since the People were chargeable with, at most, 80 days, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instruments based on CPL 30.30 grounds should have been denied.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 16, 2008