The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Antonio Grieci, Respondent. (2026)

ORDERED that the amended order is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new determination of defendant's motion in accordance with this decision and order.

On December 21, 2023, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]) for an incident occurring on April 6, 2023, and two counts of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1], [2]) for an incident occurring on September 22, 2023. On August 19, 2024, the felony count was reduced to intentional assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), thereby converting the accusatory instrument to a misdemeanor complaint, and defendant was arraigned thereon. On October 18, 2024, the People filed three supporting depositions with the court, off calendar. On October 21, 2024, the People filed a certificate of compliance (COC) and a statement of readiness (SOR) with a CPL 30.30 (5-a) certification. On November 22, 2024, the supporting depositions were submitted with the accusatory instrument and defendant was arraigned on the information.

In January 2025, defendant moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument as facially insufficient, or for an order striking the COC as improper, based on CPL 245.20 discovery violations, and for dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory, or constitutional, speedy trial grounds. The People opposed the motion. By amended order dated April 8, 2025, the Criminal Court (David I. Levine, J.) granted the branch of defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the accusatory instrument on statutory speedy trial grounds. The court noted that the People filed supporting depositions with the court clerk on October 18, 2024, but did not make an application "to the Court to advance the Defendant's court date for arraignment," and filed a COC and SOR on October 21, 2024. The court held that, since the People could not file a valid SOR prior to defendant's November 22, 2024 arraignment on the accusatory instrument which was converted to an information "following the annexing and affixing of said supporting depositions" on November 22nd, more than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People because their October 21st COC and SOR were "premature" and "untimely." The court then denied the remaining branches of defendant's motion "as moot."

The speedy trial time calculations applicable to the misdemeanor complaint commenced on August 19, 2024 when the felony complaint was converted to a misdemeanor complaint, as all time from January 18, 2024 to August 19, 2024 was excludable pursuant to CPL 30.30 (4) (b) as consent adjournments (see CPL 180.50, 30.30 [7] [c]). Consequently, from August 19th, the People had 90 days to announce their readiness for trial since the most serious offense charged was a class A misdemeanor (see CPL 30.30 [1] [b]; People v Lomax, 50 NY2d 351, 356 [1980]). Moreover, as of January 2020, absent an individualized finding of special circumstances, the filing of a proper COC is a prerequisite to the People being ready for trial (see CPL 30.30 [5]; 245.20, 245.50 [3]; People v Bay, 41 NY3d 200 [2023]; People v Guzman, 75 Misc 3d 132[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50445[U], *5 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]). Contrary to the District Court's implicit determination, the People filed the complainant's supporting depositions with the court clerk on October 18, 2024, at which time the complaint was converted to an information. There was no need for the court to actually "annex" and "affix" the depositions to the complaint in open court, in order for conversion to take place. CPL 170.65 (1) provides, in pertinent part, that, "[i]f the . . . complaint is supplemented by a supporting deposition and such instruments taken together satisfy the requirements for a valid information, such . . . complaint is deemed to have been converted to and to constitute a replacing information." Also, CPL 100.40 (1) (b) and 100.20 refer to supporting depositions which "accompany" an accusatory instrument or are "filed in connection with an information." The date a supporting deposition is filed, on or off calendar, is the date the complaint is deemed converted to an information (see People v Walls, 87 Misc 3d 28 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2025]; People v Rini, 34 Misc 3d 152[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50302[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]; People v Arellano, 22 Misc 3d 139[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50355[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]; see also People v Johnson-McLean, 71 Misc 3d 31, 36 [App Term, 1st Dept 2021]).

Moreover, the Court of Appeals has held that the People can validly announce their readiness for trial prior to a defendant's arraignment (see People v Carter, 91 NY2d 795, 798 [1998]; People v Goss, 87 NY2d 792, 797 [1996]; People v Cortes, 80 NY2d 201, 213 [1992]; People v Correa, 77 NY2d 930, 931 [1991]). It is well settled that a prearraignment statement of readiness is valid so long as there is sufficient time for a trial to take place after the statement is made prior to the expiration of the relevant speedy trial time period (see Carter, 91 NY2d at 798; Goss, 87 NY2d at 797; People v England, 84 NY2d 1 [1994]; People v Rickard, 71 AD3d 1420, 1421 [2010]; People v Lindsey, 52 AD3d 527, 530 [2008]; Rini, 2012 NY Slip Op 50302[U]). Assuming that the People's COC was proper (which issue was not addressed by the District Court), the People's statement of readiness on October 21, 2024, 63 days after the felony complaint was reduced on August 19, 2024 and prior to defendant's arraignment on November 22, 2024, would be valid because it was made well before the expiration of the 90-day statutory period during which time a trial could be held (cf. England, 84 NY2d 1). In addition, we note that the scheduling of a defendant's arraignment is the responsibility of the court, not the People, and the consent of the parties cannot divest the court of this responsibility (see Rickard, 71 AD3d at 1421; Rini, 2012 NY Slip Op 50302[U]; People v Ress, 25 Misc 3d 82, 83 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2009]).

As the District Court erroneously determined that the People could not file a valid SOR on October 21, 2024 and that, as a result, more than 90 days of delay were chargeable to the People, the matter must be remitted to the District Court for a new determination of defendant's motion.

Accordingly, the amended order is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new determination of defendant's motion in accordance with this decision and order.

DRISCOLL, P.J., WALSH and VAZQUEZ-DOLES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: September 24, 2026