The defendant was allegedly arrested on September 20, 1988 for supposed acts that occurred on September 18, 1988. It is alleged the defendant was charged with the crime of Criminal Contempt in the 2nd Degree (Penal law §215.50) as a class "A" misdemeanor. It is un-controverted that the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services has no reported disposition in this matter. Further, the New York State Office of Court Administration database [*2]lists the matter as an un-docketed arrest. For the last twenty (20) plus years the defendant has lived openly and notoriously in Nassau County, New York with no other contact with the criminal justice system.

The defendant avers in his moving papers that he had no knowledge of his "alleged arrest" and that he only gained knowledge over two (2) decades later when he was presumably told by United States Custom Officials that he had "some type of criminal history." It is un-controverted that the Nassau County District Attorney has no paper work regarding the defendant's arrest. The Court emphasizes that neither party has ever produced or made reference to any formal accusatory instrument that was ever lodged against this defendant relative to the charge under the above arrest docket.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Klopfer v. State of N.C., 386 U.S. 213, (1967)

It is factually and legally clear to this Court that the instant charge against the defendant did lay dormant for more than two (2) decades without justification on the part of the prosecutor or the New York State Court System.

From the Court's reading of the moving and opposition papers, it has been established that the defendant had a criminal charge lodged against him that basically fell into a black hole and the New York State Criminal Justice System as a whole failed to act, all to the detriment of the defendant's Federal and State Constitutional Rights.

What is paramount for our Judicial System to survive is an adherence to one of its core principals of an individuals right to a speedy trial. As set forth in, Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514, 519 (1972):

The right to a speedy trial is generically different from any of the other rights enshrined in the Constitution for the protection of the accused. In addition to the general concern that all accused persons be treated according to decent and fair procedures, there is societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and sometimes in opposition to, the interests of the accused.

Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses the charge lodged against the defendant on the above noted arrest docket and deems the matter terminated in favor of the defendant pursuant to CPL §160.60 (3)(j). The remainder of the defendant's motion is hereby denied in its entirety.

This shall constitute the Decision and order of this Court.

E N T E R:

Dated: May 9, 2014_______________________________

Angelo A. Delligatti, A.J.S.C.