People v. Correa

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 529

Decision Date: 4/4/1991

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: People v. Correa, 77 N.Y.2d 930, 569 N.Y.S.2d 601, 572 N.E.2d 42, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 529 (1991)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1991

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 79 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.46

N.Y.10

N.Y. Sup. Ct.7

N.Y. Sup. Kings5

N.Y. Crim. Ct.4

Bronx Criminal Ct.2

Most recently cited by10

2026People v. Levinshon Bronx Criminal Ct.
2025People v. Stewart N.Y. Sup. Kings
2025People v. Miller N.Y. Sup. Kings
2025People v. Urena Bronx Criminal Ct.
2025People v. Pridgen N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024People v. J.M.W. N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024People v. Gourdine N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024People v. Patrick Labate NY
2024People v. Mendez N.Y. Crim. Ct.
2022People v. Lisene N.Y. App. Div.

Cites 3 cases

People v. Ki Rhee
People v. Toro
People v. Brothers

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gregory Correa, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Mark Dwyer and Mary C. Farrington of counsel), for appellant.
Pamela Peters and Philip L. Weinstein for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Delays between indictment and the arraignment, like other court congestion, do not prevent the People from being ready for trial. Such delays are, therefore, not excludable under CPL 30.30 (see, People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413, 417; see also, People v Toro, 151 AD2d 142, lv dismissed 75 NY2d 818; accord, People v Rhee, 111 AD2d 655; People v O’Neal, 99 AD2d 844).

The People’s contention that they are legally blocked from announcing their readiness for trial prior to arraignment because defendant might not yet be represented by counsel is unavailing. CPL 30.30 (4) (f) expressly exempts periods during which defendant is without counsel.

Similarly unpersuasive is the People’s alternative contention that it would be impractical to require them to prepare for trial prior to arraignment because the defendant could plead guilty at the arraignment. That defendant might plead guilty then or at any other time before trial should not excuse the prosecutor from taking the necessary steps to be ready for trial within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay between indictment and arraignment on the indictment was properly charged to the People.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.