7 year old ticket dismissed - speedy trial statute of limitations NY

[mari79]

What is the name of your state? NY New York

Figured I would include plenty of keywords in the title so people can find this down the road.

I recently succeeded in having a 7 year old traffic infraction dismissed based on speedy trial grounds in Nassau county, NY. It sems they are pulling many old violations, there were several other drivers who were called in on old tickets.

While researching, I found People v. Ramsammay, a 2006 case from Kings county.
(2006 NY Slip Op 50336U; 11 Misc. 3d 1061A; 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 442)

The case can be accessed here: [url]http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/Decisions.htm[/url]
by clicking on "search slip opinions" and then searching by the Judge's name "Suzanne Mondo"

This direct link may also work: [url]http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50336.htm[/url]

Notable quotes:
"Although CPL 30.30 (1) [criminal procedure law] is inapplicable to traffic infractions such as VTL § 1192 [1], a defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the United States Constitu-tion, the New York Constitution, and CriminalProcedure Law 30.20. n1"

"In People v Taylor (189 Misc 2d 313, 731 N.Y.S.2d 324 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2001]), the court stated that although "a defendant charged with a traffic infraction has no statutory right to a speedy trial, he nevertheless has a constitutional right to a speedy trial (People v Fisher, 167 Misc 2d 850, 635 N.Y.S.2d 1002)"

I caried a copy of the case with me for the judge. Otherwise my motion to dismiss was oral.

Hopefully this helps somebody!

[You Are Guilty]

I guess you didn't bother reading the actual holding of that case, huh?

[mari79]

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

I guess you didn't bother reading the actual holding of that case, huh?

Seems as if you didnt bother to read - the defendant lost because his motion didnt address the factors the court considers to decide whether his rights were violated - the key is to argue not just that there has been a delay, but that there was no reason for the state to delay and that you have been prejudiced.

"inexcusable delay will not in and of itself be sufficient to warrant the drastic measure of dismissal(People v Taylor, 189 Misc 2d 313, 314 [App Term, 2d Dept 2001], supra, citing People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, supra, at 446), defendant has not established that his constitutional rights have been

violated to a point where dismissal is warranted. Accordingly, defendant's motion for an order dismissing the traffic infraction is denied."

Regardless of the holding, the case is useful because it points out that speedy trial does apply to traffic infractions.

[SpeedyTrail]

I'm going through same situation in Nassau County.

The key is to argue not just that there has been a delay, but that there was no reason for the state to delay and that you have been prejudiced.

How were you Prejudiced?

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by mari79

What is the name of your state? NY New York

Figured I would include plenty of keywords in the title so people can find this down the road.

I recently succeeded in having a 7 year old traffic infraction dismissed based on speedy trial grounds in Nassau county, NY. It sems they are pulling many old violations, there were several other drivers who were called in on old tickets.

While researching, I found People v. Ramsammay, a 2006 case from Kings county.
(2006 NY Slip Op 50336U; 11 Misc. 3d 1061A; 2006 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 442)

The case can be accessed here: [url]http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/Decisions.htm[/url]
by clicking on "search slip opinions" and then searching by the Judge's name "Suzanne Mondo"

This direct link may also work: [url]http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50336.htm[/url]

Notable quotes:
"Although CPL 30.30 (1) [criminal procedure law] is inapplicable to traffic infractions such as VTL § 1192 [1], a defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the United States Constitu-tion, the New York Constitution, and CriminalProcedure Law 30.20. n1"

"In People v Taylor (189 Misc 2d 313, 731 N.Y.S.2d 324 [App Term, 2nd Dept 2001]), the court stated that although "a defendant charged with a traffic infraction has no statutory right to a speedy trial, he nevertheless has a constitutional right to a speedy trial (People v Fisher, 167 Misc 2d 850, 635 N.Y.S.2d 1002)"

I caried a copy of the case with me for the judge. Otherwise my motion to dismiss was oral.

Hopefully this helps somebody!

Thanks - 7 years...they really must be after revenues to go to those kinds of lengths... it is clearly not about public safety - the true intent of the law