PEOPLE v. POLANCO

570402/11.

2017 NY Slip Op 50188(U)

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MANNY POLANCO, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michael J. Yavinsky, J. at first speedy trial motion; Anthony J. Ferrara, J., at second speedy trial motion, hearings and trial), rendered April 15, 2011, convicting him, after a jury trial, of aggravated driving while intoxicated per se and driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of conviction (Michael J. Yavinsky, J. at first speedy trial motion; Anthony J. Ferrara, J. at second speedy trial motion, hearings and trial), rendered April 15, 2011, affirmed.

Defendant's speedy trial motions were properly denied. On this record, there is no proof that the People's readiness statements did not accurately reflect their position (see People v Brown, 28 N.Y.3d 392 [2016]; People v Sibblies, 22 N.Y.3d 1174 [2014]). The People's request for a three day adjournment on October 18, 2010 to obtain a calibration report does not establish that their prior statements of readiness were illusory. It is not the calibration report, but proof of the operability of the breathalyzer, that is necessary to lay a prima facie foundation for admission of the breathalyzer test results (see People v Zale, 137 A.D.3d 634, 635 [2016], lv denied 27 N.Y.3d 1141 [2016]). "Therefore, the People's delay in obtaining and producing the calibration report . . . does not render their prior statements of readiness illusory" (id. at 635). The People could legitimately declare their readiness while gathering additional evidence to strengthen their case (see People v Wright, 50 A.D.3d 429, 430 [2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 966 [2008]; People v Rouse, 4 A.D.3d 553, 556 [2004], lv denied 2 N.Y.3d 805 [2004]).

The adjournment period between the motion court's December 1, 2010 decision on defendant's first speedy trial motion and the next court date, January 24, 2011, was excludable as a delay attributable to defendant's motions and the demands of the court calendar (see People v Washington, 238 A.D.2d 263 [1997], lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 944 [1997]; People v Shaw, 44 Misc.3d 79, 80 [2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1046 [2014]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases