Statute of Limitations

Criminal matters in New York State are governed by a statute of limitations.  The time within which a criminal action may be brought is the statute of limitations.  Most of the time the statute of limitations refers to the time allowed to bring a civil action however, the similar legal theory also applies to the prosecution of a criminal offense. 

Generally the more serious the crime the longer the prosecution has to bring the charges.  In the case of Class A felonies, such as Murder, there is no limitation on when the action may be commenced.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

• Class A Felony — No time limit, CPL 30.10(2)(a)
• Other Felonies — 5 years, CPL 30.10(2)(b)
• Misdemeanor — 2 years, CPL 30.10(2)(c)
• Violations — 1 year, CPL 30.10(2)(d)

Generally after a crime is committed charges must be filed within the above time frames. CPL 1.20(17)

Speedy Trial

Usually in a criminal matter charges are filed with the Court almost immediately.  However, an accused has a right to a speedy trial once the charges are filed with the Court.  The United States Constitution (6th Amendment) and by law in New York State require a speedy trial.  The laws governing speedy trial are some of the most complex in all criminal law however this overview should give you a good understanding of the speedy trial laws in New York State. 

These laws are litigated in every county including Westchester County, Orange County, Putnam, Rockland and Dutchess County.  In local criminal courts such as White Plains City Court, County Court, Yonkers, Greenburgh, Bedford, North Castle, Mount Vernon, Newburgh, Goshen, New Windsor, Southeast, Kent and other similar Courts all keep records of speedy trial time.   

The right to a speedy trial is broken down into two areas a Constitutional Speedy Trial Right and a Statutory Speedy Trial Right.

Constitutional Speedy Trial

The constitutional speedy trial looks to the length of time between the commencement of the action against the defendant and the commencement of trial.  A due process argument may be made if an inordinate amount of delay has occurred between stages in a criminal matter such as between commission of the offense and arrest.  This applies to all offenses.

To usually obtain dismissal of a criminal matter on constitutional speedy trial grounds in New York State any argument must include a showing that the accused has been prejudiced by the prosecutions failure to prosecute the charge in question.  If the delay is significant (usually a number of years) prejudice need not be shown unless there was justification for the delay (People v Guzman, 227 AD2d 219).

The Court will consider five factors to determine dismissal on Constitional speedy trial grounds.  Those factors include:

1. The length of the delay
2. The reason for the delay
3. The degree of actual prejudice to the defendant
4.  The seriousness of the underlying charge
5. the extent of any pretrial incarceration

See, People v Taranovich 37 NY2d 442 and People v Vernace 96 NY 2d 886

Statutory Speedy Trial under CPL 30.30

CPL 30.30 the speedy trial statute requires the People announce their readiness for trial within a certain amount of time after the action has been commenced against the defendant.  The important dates are the date of the commencement of the action and the date on which the prosecution announces readiness for trial.

The trial does not actually have to begin but if the people do not or can not announce readiness the case will be dismissed as a violation of the statutory speedy trial law.

CPL 30.30 —  Time restrictions

• Felony — 6 months
• A Misdemeanor — 90 Days
• B Misdemeanor — 60 Days
• Violation — 30 days
• Traffic Infraction — N/A

There are excludable periods of time that will stop the speedy trial clock and the prosecution will not be charged with the delay.  Some of the excludable time includes:

• Reasonable period of delay attributable to other proceedingsconcerning the defendant such as a competency proceeding, demands to produce, pre-trial motions, appeals. 
• Adjournments at the request of the defendant or consented to by the defendant.

• The defendant is absent or unavailable, such as a bench warrant or in jail in another jurisdiction.

• Time that the defendant is without counsel.

The Best Speedy Trial Defense

The best speedy trial defense involves a calculation of time starting with the date of the alleged crime itself and determining what time is chargeable to the prosecution as a violation of either statutory or due process rights.

Some cases may be dismissed in court others require a written motion.  A clear understanding of the various time periods is required.

During a trial the government needs to prove each and every element of a crime.  In cases such as petit larceny, assault, weapons possession, driving with a suspended license (AUO) (511(1)(a)) and other similar crimes a lab report is not needed.  But in cases such as DWI, DWAI, DWAI drugs and drug cases such as criminal possession of a controlled substance and criminal sale of a controlled substance a lab report will be  needed to be introduced at sometime during the trial.

District Attorneys have relied on certified records to introduce certain lab reports in DWI, DWAI, DWAI drugs and other drug cases instead of having the actual lab analyst testify.  This seems to be changing with the most recent US Supreme Court case as outlined below.

Lab Reports at Trial in DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug  and Drug Cases

At trial for an offense involving any Laboratory Report (usually a drug, DWI or gun charge case) the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment requires a criminal accused to be confronted with the testimony of lab analysts.

The United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 129 S Ct 2527, held that a lab analyst’s certificate is testimonial and can not be admitted unless the analyst was unavailable to testify at trial and the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the analyst.

DWI Blood/Breath Test Lab Reports

In Nassau County after a DWI trial the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the admission of the calibration log of the breathalyzer machine used to test his blood alcohol level as a certified business record and required the prosecution to present live testimony from the lab technicians who preformed the calibration.

The Best Criminal Defense

The best criminal defense is one that holds the government to their burden on each and every element of the crime.  This is especially true of DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug and other Controlled Substance cases where a lab report is necessary.  In Westchester, Rockland, Bronx, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties the government will have their own report usually from the County Department of Lab and Research.  These lab reports must be attacked for their accuracy.  This additional requirement that the government bring the actual analyst into court is helpful to the experienced criminal defense attorney and the accused since it opens the door to in depth cross examination.

White Plains City Court Criminal Defense 

In the City Court of White Plains there has been an increase use by the department of labs and research in Westchester County of “preliminary” lab reports to support DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug and other drug charges.  These lab reports are the very reports that need to be scrutinized for their accuracy and demanding the actual lab analyst to testify will help any criminal defense.

Southeast DWI Criminal Defense

Likewise, for any criminal defense for a DWI, DWAI, DWAI drug charge in busy DWI courts such as the Town of Southeast in Putnam County (Brewster).  These lab reports must be scrutinized as they usually are the prosecutions strongest form of evidence.

Stephen Riebling successfully represented his client at trial in the City Court of White Plains, New York in defense to the misdemeanor crime of Menacing in the Third Degree.

In defending those criminal charges, criminal trial attorney Riebling focused on demonstrating that his client did not engage in any actions which were criminal under the law.  All New York crimes, including felonies and misdemeanors have specific elements which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The crime of Menacing in the Third Degree states:

“A person is guilty of Menacing in the Third Degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.” (PL § 120.15.)

The single most important factor in defending his client in the White Plains, New York Court was the lack of any “physical menace.”  In order to satisfy the physical menace element of this crime, it must be alleged that the defendant committed a physical act which, in and of itself, placed another person in fear of imminent injury.Words or threats are not enough to satisfy the requirement.A defendant may not be convicted of Menacing without evidence of this important element.

At the time of trial, the case was successfully resolved in favor of Attorney Riebling’s client.

****

If you or someone you know has been arrested for a crime, misdemeanor or felony and needs a criminal defense lawyer in New York, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm’s criminal defense lawyers regularly appear in the courts of Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.

When an individual suffers a personal injury as a result of the actions of an animal, most commonly those cases involving dog bites,

it is often believed that the injured person may not recover from the dog’s owner if the dog has never bitten anyone before. This misconception is often referred to as the “one free bite” rule. Under New York State law, there is no such rule. The standard is not whether or not the dog has bitten previously, what is required is that the dog, or any other animal, exhibits a “vicious propensity” that the owner knew or should have known.

The attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP are personal injury lawyers in New York who utilize these important aspects of the law to maximize the recovery for their clients.

New York Courts have defined a vicious or dangerous propensity to mean a natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a manner that might endanger the person or property of others, Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 775 NYS2d 205, 807 NE2d 254; Dickson v McCoy, 39 NY 400; Wheaton v Guthrie, 898 AD2d 809, 453 NYS2d 480; Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 284 NYS 2d 130; Shuffian v Garfola, 9 AD2d 910, 195 NYS 2d 45; see Mirabella v Thiem, 306 NY 650, 116 NE2d 492, and Webster’s International Dictionary.

As previously mentioned:

 “a vicious propensity is not limited to a bite or other attack, but ‘includes a propensity to act in a manner that may endanger the safety of another, whether playful or not.” (Provorse v Curtis, 288 AD2d 832 [decided herewith]; see, Mitura v Roy, 174 AD2d 1020; see also, Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 369-370).”Marquardt v Milewski, 288 AD2d 928, 732 NYS2d 801.

Any “’known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act.’ (Thirlwall v Galanter, 66 Misc 2d 88, 90 [Sandler, J.], quoting Prosser, Torts, at 515 [3d ed.]; see also, Mitura v Roy, Anderson v Carduner 279 AD2d 369

In the Supreme Court, Westchester County, located in White Plains, New York, personal injury trial attorney Stephen Riebling successfully litigated and settled just such a case on behalf of his injured client. 

In that case, the client suffered a significant personal injury to her nose and face when a dog owned by an acquaintance jumped up at the client.

When the dog jumped, its mouth and teeth smashed into the client’s face resulting in serious injuries that required multiple surgeries. The owners of the dog defended the case by claiming that their dog had never bitten anyone before and was just a large friendly dog.

Attorney Riebling successfully demonstrated at trial that the dog had the requisite “vicious propensity” even though the dog had never bitten anyone before. Instead of arguing that the injury resulted from a dog bite, Attorney Riebling argued that the client’s injuries resulted from the dog’s natural inclination to jump up onto people. It was further shown that the owner’s were aware of the dog’s habit to jump and had acted to guard against the dog jumping onto people before this incident occurred
As compensation for her personal injuries, Attorney Riebling’s client accepted a mid-six figure settlement offer at trial.

*****

If you or someone you know has been injured and needs a personal injury attorney, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm’s personal injury attorneys regularly appear in all the courts of New York: Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.