People v. Berke, 489 N.E.2d 247 (NY 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Berke, 489 N.E.2d 247 (NY 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Worley (ny, 1985-12-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Worley
NY · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
We recognized this difference between the application of paragraphs (a) and (c) of subdivision 4 in Sturgis when we refused to charge the prosecutor with nine days’ delay resulting from defense counsel’s request for an adjournment but did charge him with the time during defendant’s absence (see, People v Sturgis, 38 NY2d 625, 627 , supra; see also, People v Berke, 66 NY2d 861 ; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351 ; People v Hamilton, 46 NY2d 932 ; People v Campbell, 96 AD2d 725 ; People v Ronzetti, 88 AD2d 982 ).
The People of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Paul Berke, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 19, 1985.
489 N.E.2d 247
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Andrew J. Turro of counsel), for appellant., Lawrence S. Goldman for respondent.
Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed, the information reinstated and the case remitted to Criminal Court, New York County, for further proceedings on the information.

Criminal Court erred in ruling that when a felony charge is dismissed and the judge directs the People to prepare a prosecutor’s information as to the misdemeanor charges remaining, CPL 30.30 (1) (b) requires dismissal, without regard to time otherwise excludable, if the People fail to provide such an information within 90 days of the dismissal order. Unlike the situation in People v Colon (59 NY2d 921), the People had already filed a felony complaint which conferred jurisdiction over the defendant (CPL 100.40 [1]). There being no other basis for dismissal pursuant to CPL 30.30, the information should be reinstated.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.