Opinion · Nylaw New York

PEOPLE v. BRYANT, 12 N.Y.2d 719 (1962)

233 N.Y.S.2d 771

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1962-10-25
Topic
general

PEOPLE v. BRYANT, 12 N.Y.2d 719 (1962) 233 N.Y.S.2d 771, 186 N.E.2d 127 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HENRY BRYANT,Appellant.Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued September 26, 1962 Decided October 25, 1962 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JAMES C. CRANE, J. Charles S.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. BRYANT, 12 N.Y.2d 719 (1962). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PEOPLEv.BRYANT,12 N.Y.2d 719(1962)
233 N.Y.S.2d 771,186 N.E.2d 127
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,v.HENRY BRYANT,
Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued September 26, 1962
Decided October 25, 1962
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, JAMES C. CRANE, J.Page 720
Charles S. Haight, Jr.,andAnthony F. Marrafor appellant.John M. Braisted, Jr., District Attorney(Thomas R.Sullivanof counsel), for respondent.
Per Curiam.
The judgment should be reversed and the indictment dismissed. The nearly two-year delay from February 25, 1957, the day on which defendant was sentenced on the earlier charges, to January 13, 1959, the day on which he appeared in court for arraignment for trial on the present indictment, at which time he moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, is prima facie unreasonable. The People have failed to establish good cause for the delay (Code Crim. Pro., § 668), and defendant, in no manner, waived his right to a speedy trial. His failure to demand final disposition of the charges under section 669-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not a relinquishment of his right to move for dismissal under section 668 (Peoplev.Segura,6 N.Y.2d 936). Accordingly, the indictment should have been dismissed (Peoplev.Piscitello,7 N.Y.2d 387).

Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS, BURKE and FOSTER concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.Page 721