The People of the State of New York, v. Jayson Reid (2026)

The People's motion, which is in effect to reargue the dismissal of this action on speedy-trial grounds pursuant to CPL 30.30, is hereby GRANTED and the case is restored to the calendar.

The People timely declared ready in this case on April 23, 2026, by filing with the court and serving on counsel a certificate of compliance ("COC") and statement of readiness. Nevertheless, at the next court appearance on Friday, May 1, 2026, the prosecution conceded that their speedy-trial time had expired and consented to the action's dismissal. This was a mistake based on incorrect information in a piece of prosecution paperwork called a "status sheet," which prosecutors use to relay instructions from the assigned prosecutor to the prosecutor staffing the court part where the case will be heard. In this case, the prosecution's May 1 status sheet for this case incorrectly instructed the stand-up assistant to concede the action's dismissal on speedy-trial grounds. On the People's concession, the court dismissed the action and noted in the court file that it was "dismissed and sealed."

The People learned of their error later that day and sought to reverse it before a different judge. That judge granted an order purporting to unseal the court file but did not vacate the dismissal. Instead, they adjourned the action to the following Monday, May 4, 2026, to be heard by the judge who originally dismissed the action. On the People's application, that court set a motion schedule to consider whether it was authorized to grant the relief that the People had requested.

The People have now filed a "Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal." As defendant correctly points out, the CPL does not contemplate such a motion. But in People v. Smith, 23 Misc 3d 1140(A), at *2 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. 2009), the court encountered almost identical facts and concluded that it was authorized to grant the same relief that the People seek here through a motion to reargue. See also People v. Sanchez, 8 Misc 3d 900, 902 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. 2005). Of course, the CPL does not authorize a motion to reargue either. But while no express statutory authority exists, courts have concluded that they have inherent power to reconsider their earlier rulings "when there is a compelling reason to do so." People v. Johnson, 51 Misc 3d 801, 803 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. 2016) (citing People v. DeFreitas, 48 Misc 3d 569, 575-76 (N.Y.C. Crim. Ct. 2015)); but see People v. Rodriguez, 21 AD3d 834, 834 (1st Dep't 2005). These authorities are persuasive, and the circumstances warranting reargument here are compelling. It is undisputed that the People's concession of untimeliness was premised on a mistake, and that the court's resulting acceptance of the People's concession as the basis for its decision to dismiss the action was equally founded on an error. The mistake should have been apparent to everyone—the court included—since the People had served and filed a statement of readiness days earlier. At a minimum, the statement of readiness should have prompted the court to inquire further into the factual basis for prosecution's concession of untimeliness. The People acted promptly both in identifying the error and seeking relief from the court. And the People ultimately presented that request for relief to the same judge who granted the dismissal order.

Under these circumstances, the court is persuaded that granting reargument is a reasonable and expedient alternative to the appellate remedy that the People appear to possess. See CPL 450.20(1). Therefore, the People's motion to reargue the court's May 1, 2026 dismissal order is granted and, on reargument, that order is vacated. The People should be charged with the three-day period between the date the case was dismissed and the date the schedule on their motion was set.

The foregoing constitutes the order of the court.

Dated: July 10, 2026

Bronx, New York

Hon. Philip V. Tisne

Philip V. Tisne, J.