People v. Grafton

I must dissent, as I disagree with the majority’s position that, in order to avoid inconsistency, a finding by this court that the People provided a "sufficient ground for an extension” (Rules of App Div, 4th Dept, 22 NYCRR 1000.3 [a] [1]) must be equated with "a reasonable period of delay resulting from * * * appeals” (CPL 30.30 [4] [a]). I would hold that the People failed to meet their burden of proof that the period from April 20, when the appeal should have been perfected, to August 30, when it was perfected, was a reasonable period of delay for CPL 30.30 purposes. I would charge the…