PEOPLE v. MORRIS (2025)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Curtis J. Farber, J.), rendered December 22, 2022, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant's motion to controvert the warrant for his cell phone.  The warrant's authorization to review all contents of the phone “in order to locate evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the Subject Crimes” was not overbroad or insufficiently particular where the warrant included a detailed and particularized list of the information to be seized (see United States v. Galpin, 720 F3d 436, 445–446 [2d Cir2013];  United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 844 [2d Cir1990]).  Defendant's contention that execution of the warrant was untimely under CPL 690.30(1) is foreclosed by our decision in People v. Ruffin (178 AD3d 455, 455 [1st Dept 2019]).

Defendant's CPL 30.30 motion was properly denied.  Both of the post-readiness delays at issue were attributable to court congestion and not to the People (see People v. Labate, 42 NY3d 184, 191–192 [2024]).  Defendant's non-production on the two dates in question was not the fault of the People and it was not “the People's dereliction that [prevented] the defendant's trial from going forward” (People v. Goss, 87 N.Y.2d 792, 797 [1996]).  Notably, defense counsel waived defendant's appearance on both dates.