Legal Opinion

People v. Armstrong

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided September 23, 1994PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

2Per curiam

Order entered July 2, 1992 reversed, on the law and on the facts, motion denied, superseding information reinstated, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Properly applying the rule of People v Sinistaj (67 NY2d 236) that an accusatory instrument which replaces an earlier one in the same criminal action is related back to the original accusatory instrument for purposes of determining the commencement of the statutory readiness period and calculating the time to be excluded from the statutory limitation, Criminal Court determined that only 89 days were chargeable…

3Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. KendziaNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. People v. SinistajNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. People v. EnglandNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. People v. McKennaNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. People v. ColeNew York Court of Appeals · 1989

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. People v. McLeodCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2014
  2. People v. MoralesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  3. People v. MoralesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API