Appeals court sends case back to Erie County over speedy trial issue
Bennett Loudon//July 31, 2025//
A state appeals court has sent a case back to Erie County Court for a speedy trial ruling by the judge.
In September 2023 Judge Susan M. Eagan granted a defense motion to dismiss an indictment against defendant Louie Harris.
Eagan granted the motion on statutory speedy trial grounds.
The Erie County District Attorney’s office appealed and the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, reserved decision and remitted the case to Erie County Court.
The prosecutor argued that Eagan erred in concluding that the prosecution’s certificate of compliance was improper, which made their statement of readiness illusory.
The prosecutor also argued that the judge also erred in granting the defense motion on that basis without accounting for periods of excludable time.
When a defendant files a CPL 30.30 motion, and the certificate of compliance is ruled improper, and the readiness statement is stricken as illusory, the case will be dismissed if the time chargeable to the prosecution exceeds the applicable period, according to the Fourth Department decision.
While an illusory statement of readiness will not stop the running of the speedy trial clock, the judge must decide which periods of time are chargeable to the prosecution for speedy trial purposes, the court wrote.
In Harris’s case, “the court failed to calculate any periods of excludable time for speedy trial purposes,” the Fourth Department wrote.
“Thus, even assuming … that the People’s certificate of compliance was improper and that the statement of readiness was therefore illusory, we do not address the People’s contention that the time chargeable to them did not exceed six months because the court did not rule on the excludable time,” the panel wrote.
“We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to County Court to determine whether the People were ready within the requisite six-month time period,” the court wrote.
[email protected] / (585) 232-2035
Related Articles
Related Articles
Case Digests
- Fourth Department – Separation of powers doctrine: Allard v. County of Steuben
- Second Circuit – Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: Creditincome Limited v. The Swiss Confederation
- Fourth Department – Circumstantial evidence charge: People v. Coleman
- Second Circuit – Sentencing conditions: United States v. McCrone
- Fourth Department – Mental illness: People v. Williams
- Fourth Department – Sex Offender Registration Act: People v. Wallace
- Second Circuit – Failure to accommodate religion: Bergin v. N.Y. Unified Court System
- Second Circuit – Sentencing: United States v. DeJesus
- Fourth Department – Ineffective assistance of counsel: People v. Castaneda
- Fourth Department – Search warrant: People v. Anderson
- Fourth Department – Probable cause: People v. Asbury
Law News
- Appeals court rejects claims of speedy trial violation
- NY appeals court vacates gun convictions
- Rochester panel highlights early planning for successful business transitions
- New York sues Kalshi, says its prediction markets are illegal gambling
- Police investigate alleged misappropriation of Walworth Fire Department funds
- New trial granted for defendant unhappy with their attorney
- NY appellate court reinstates medical malpractice case
- NY appeals court reinstates slip-and-fall lawsuit




