Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Appeals court sends case back to Erie County over speedy trial issue

Bennett Loudon//July 31, 2025//

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 Court for a 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, , reserved decision and remitted the case to .

The prosecutor argued that Eagan erred in concluding that the prosecution’s 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

Case Digests

See all Case Digests

Law News

See All Law News