Defendant is charged with, inter alia, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs (VTL 1192 [2]), a class A misdemeanor. Defendant moves to dismiss the accusatory instrument, averring the People violated his right to a speedy trial (CPL 30.30). The People did not respond to defendant's motion. The People are charged with 290 days, and defendant's motion is granted.

A motion to dismiss an information must be granted when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of more than three months, and the People are not ready for trial within 90 days of the commencement of the criminal action (CPL 30.30 [1] [b]). In order to be ready for trial pursuant to CPL 30.30, the statement of readiness must appear on the record, and it must declare a present readiness to proceed to trial (People v [*2]Kendzia, 64 NY2d 331 [1985]). A statement of readiness made "at a time when the People are not actually ready is illusory and insufficient to stop the running of the speedy trial clock" (People v England, 84 NY2d 1[1994]). Since defendant is alleging some of the People's statements of readiness were illusory, the People have the burden of demonstrating certain time is excluded pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859 [1986]; People v Berkowitz, 50 NY2d 333 [1980]).

Based upon a review of the court file and the motion of defendant, the court finds:

Defendant was arraigned on July 5, 2013, and the People announced ready for trial. The case was adjourned to September 12, 2013, for open-file discovery. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to November 19, 2013, for hearing and trial.

On November 19, 2013, the People stated they were not ready to proceed and requested an adjournment to November 25, 2014. The court adjourned the case to January 30, 2014. On January 30, 2014, the People stated they were not ready to proceed, alleging the arresting officer was notified, but failed to appear. The People requested a good faith adjournment, and the judge presiding in the all-purpose part reserved decision. The case was adjourned to March 25, 2014. On February 4, 2014, the People filed a certificate of readiness off-calendar.

On March 25, 2014, the People stated they were not ready to proceed and requested an adjournment to April 2, 2014. The court adjourned the case to May 15, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the People stated they were not ready to proceed, claiming the arresting officer was notified, but failed to appear. The court adjourned the case to July 8, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the People filed a certificate of readiness off-calendar.

On July 8, 2014, the People stated they were not ready to proceed, and the court adjourned the case to September 18, 2014. On August 13, 2014, the People filed a certificate of readiness off-calendar and on September 18, 2014, the People stated they were not ready to proceed. However, defendant had filed a CPL 30.30 motion on September 4, 2014. The court ordered the People to respond by October 7, 2014, and adjourned the case to November 5, 2014, for decision. The People did not file a response. The People are charged with the period of time from November 19, 2013, to September 4, 2014.

Defendant claims the People have not been ready for trial since November 19, 2013, because the subsequent certificates of readiness filed off-calendar, as well as requests for short adjournments, were illusory. On five consecutive court dates thereafter, the People answered not ready to proceed, asking for a short adjourn date or filing a certificate of readiness off-calendar, only to declare not ready at the next court appearance. Although the People's certificates of readiness are presumed to be truthful and accurate, this presumption can be rebutted by a defendant (People v Sibblies, 22 NY3d 1174 [2014]; People v Bonilla, 94 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2012]). In the case at bar, defendant has challenged the propriety of the People's certificates of readiness, and the People have failed to demonstrate that an exceptional fact or circumstance arose after their declarations of readiness, so as to render them not ready for trial on the next court date (Sibblies at 1178).

Analyzing the case as a whole rather than focusing on each adjournment separately, it is clear that the People's certificates of readiness filed off-calendar and requests for short adjournments, were illusory; all were followed by the People's statement of not ready at the next court appearance. Despite announcing ready off-calendar, in the presence of defendant, the People answered not ready to proceed to trial at six consecutive court appearances. The Court of Appeals has rebuked this practice, labeling it "readiness in the air, without readiness on the ground" (Sibblies at 1178).

CPL 30.30 demands prosecutorial readiness to reduce delays in criminal prosecutions. However, the People's declarations of readiness off-calendar, as well as requests for short adjourn dates, prolonged defendant's criminal prosecution and delayed the running of the statutory period. (Sibblies at 1178.) Defendant has been prevented from availing himself of the People's readiness; thus, the people have not been ready for trial since November 19, 2013.

Accordingly, the People are charged with 290 days. This amount is greater than the 90 day period mandated by CPL 30.30 (1) (b); defendant's speedy trial rights have been violated, and his motion to dismiss the information is granted.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.