Defendant, charged with two counts of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(1) and (2), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law §§110/120.00(1), and Harassment in the Second Degree, in violation of Penal Law §240.26(1), moves for an order dismissing the Information pursuant to CPL § 30.30. The Court has reviewed the entries and documents in the court file, the parties' motion papers, and the relevant statutes and case law. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that 55 days are chargeable to the People. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

According to the accusatory instrument, the defendant grabbed the complainant's left wrist, causing her to suffer a laceration and the loss of a fingernail. Defendant's actions caused the complainant substantial pain.

Defendant was arraigned on February 20, 2013, on a Misdemeanor Complaint charging him with two counts of Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(1) and (2), Attempted Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law §§ 110/120.00(1), and Harassment in the Second Degree, in violation of Penal Law §240.26(1). The defendant was released on his own recognizance, and the case was adjourned to April 29, 2013. Subsequent calendar appearances took place on June 27, 2013, September 3, 2013, November 7, 2013, January 13, 2014, February 24, 2014, April 7, 2014, and April 17, [*2]2014, and May 20, 2014, on which date the case was adjourned to September 8, 2014.

Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss on July 17, 2014, and the matter has been sub judice since then.

Defendant is charged with "at least one ... misdemeanor punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months." CPL § 30.30(1)(b). Thus, his motion to dismiss must be granted if the People were not ready for trial within 90 chargeable days of the commencement of the action. Id. Here, there were ten court appearances from the commencement of the action through the filing of the motion to dismiss. Those events spanned 513 calendar days, and 55 of those days are chargeable to the People. The motion to dismiss is accordingly denied.

Because there was at least one calendar call where the People answered "not ready" after previously asserting their readiness, this case calls upon the Court to apply the Court of Appeals' recent decision in People v. Sibblies, 22 NY3d 1174 (2014), which dismissed an information on speedy trial grounds. This Court has previously held that the proper approach to follow is Judge Graffeo's concurrence in Sibblies. See People v. McLeod, ___Misc.3d___, 988 N.Y.S.2d 436 (Crim Ct NY County 2014) (Statsinger, J.) Under McLeod, when the People answer "not ready" after a statement of readiness, that alone does not render the prior statement illusory. Rather, the earlier statement of readiness will only be deemed illusory if the record contains proof that the People were not actually ready when they said they were. Id. For the adjournment that defendant contests, no such proof is apparent on the record here.

Criminal Procedure Law § 1.20(17) provides that "a criminal action is commenced by the filing of an accusatory instrument against a defendant in a criminal court." In this case, that event occurred at defendant's arraignment on February 20, 2013. The speedy trial clock started on the next day. People v. Stiles, 70 NY2d 765, 767 (1987). At arraignment, the Court adjourned the case to April 29 for conversion. However, on March 22, off-calendar, the People filed with the Court and served on defense counsel by mail a Certificate of Readiness ("COR"), and a supporting deposition. Accordingly, 30 days are chargeable to the People

On April 29, 2013, the Court directed the defense to file motions by June 3, and adjourned the case to June 27 for response and decision. For this period, 0 days are chargeable to the People. CPL §30.30 (4)(a) ("reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including ... pre-trial motions" is [*3]excludable).

On April 7, 2014, the People answered "ready"for trial, but defense counsel was engaged and did not appear. The Court adjourned the case to April 17 for hearing and trial and for defense counsel to appear. For this period, 0 days are chargeable to the [*4]People. CPL § 30.30(4)(f) ("the period during which the defendant is without counsel through no fault of the court" is excludable).