Criminal Defense
In short
CPL 30.30 gives the prosecution six months for a felony, 90 days for a class A misdemeanor, 60 for a class B and 30 for a violation to announce they are ready for trial. It is a readiness rule rather than a guarantee of a trial date, and large categories of time are excluded, chiefly defense adjournments and motion practice.
No, and this is the single most misunderstood rule in New York criminal procedure.
CPL 30.30 does not require the prosecution to try your case within any period. It requires them to announce that they are ready for trial within it. The Court of Appeals has said the statute “addresses only the problem of prosecutorial readiness, and is not a speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense.”
Once the People validly declare readiness, the clock stops. The actual trial can be a year later without violating the statute.
There is a separate constitutional speedy trial right under CPL 30.20, which has no fixed time limit and is decided by weighing the length of the delay, the reason for it, the seriousness of the charge, whether the defendant has been held in custody, and whether the defense has been impaired.
| Charge | Limit |
|---|---|
| Any felony count | 6 months |
| Class A misdemeanor | 90 days |
| Class B misdemeanor | 60 days |
| Violation | 30 days |
| Vehicle and Traffic Law infractions | Covered, at the applicable level |
Two precision points that matter:
Traffic infractions being covered at all is relatively recent. Older decisions held they were outside the statute, and citing them today would be wrong.
Homicide. CPL 30.30 does not apply at all to murder and the manslaughter offenses. There is no readiness clock in those cases, and only the constitutional right applies.
Because the calendar and the legal deadline are two different things. Large blocks of time are excluded from the count, so a 90 day misdemeanor routinely sits for many months with far fewer than 90 chargeable days.
The main exclusions under CPL 30.30(4):
Note that most of these are not automatic. Several require the court to make a finding, and the reasonableness qualifiers do real work.
The burden matters. The defense makes the initial showing that readiness was not declared in time. The People then have to identify and justify the excludable periods, and if the time is disputed the court must hold a hearing at which the People must prove the period is excludable.
Two things must both be true. There must be a communication of readiness on the court’s record, either in open court or by written notice filed and served, and the People must be actually ready at that moment.
A statement of readiness made when the People are not truly ready is illusory and does not stop the clock.
The statute adds gates of its own. The court must inquire on the record into whether the People are actually ready, and if it finds they are not, the statement is invalid. In local criminal court, which is where every Nassau misdemeanor sits, a statement of readiness is invalid unless the prosecutor certifies that the charges are facially sufficient.
On timing, the Court of Appeals held in People v. Licius, 2025 NY Slip Op 05873, decided 23 October 2025, that an electronic filing submitted before midnight on the due date is timely even though the clerk did not process it until the next morning.
This is the mechanism behind most modern speedy trial dismissals, and it is what makes the rule bite.
Under CPL 245.50(3), the prosecution is not deemed ready for trial until it has filed a valid certificate of compliance with its discovery obligations. No valid certificate means no valid readiness, which means the clock never stopped.
In People v. Bay, 41 N.Y.3d 200 (2023), the Court of Appeals held that the People must exercise due diligence before filing the certificate, that a later supplemental certificate cannot cure a failure to be diligent at the outset, and that the People carry the burden of showing diligence. It also made clear there is no rule of strict liability and the statute does not expect a “perfect prosecutor.”
Substantially, and most published material has not caught up.
Amendments enacted in the 2025 budget took effect on 7 August 2025 and apply to cases pending on that date as well as later ones. They do not reach back to certificates filed earlier. The main changes:
| Before | Now |
|---|---|
| Compliance reviewed item by item | Courts must look at the totality of the party’s efforts |
| Prejudice to the defense was not required | Prejudice is now a mandatory factor, though not determinative on its own |
| Defects raised “as soon as practicable” | 35 days to challenge a certificate, with a required meet and confer |
| Readiness could be undone by discovery failures generally | The court may deem the People not ready only if it finds the certificate invalid |
The amendments also added a floor: a court shall not invalidate a certificate where the party exercised due diligence and acted in good faith in making reasonable inquiries.
The 35 day deadline is a genuine trap for defendants. It replaced an open-ended standard, it requires an affirmation that the parties conferred in good faith and could reach no accommodation, and an extension has to be requested before the 35 days expire. There is a narrow escape where circumstances materially change, such as a belated disclosure.
One local wrinkle worth knowing: the 35 day clock is triggered only where the prosecution has filed an indictment or information before the certificate. On a misdemeanor complaint that has not yet been converted, it is not triggered.
No, and that belief was already wrong before the 2025 amendments made it more wrong.
The Second Department, whose decisions control in Nassau County, has repeatedly held that a valid certificate and a readiness declaration are not rendered illusory by later disclosures made diligently and in good faith. In a January 2026 decision it upheld a certificate where grand jury minutes were disclosed the same day they were created, because the transcript did not exist earlier.
What actually decides these motions is whether the People were diligent before certifying, judged across the whole of their efforts.
Before trial begins or before a guilty plea is entered, in writing.
The Court of Appeals addressed the outer limit in People v. Roper, 2026 NY Slip Op 02365, decided 21 April 2026: a misdemeanor speedy trial motion is timely if made in writing before trial commences, including on the morning trial was set to begin, and the general notice requirements cannot shorten that.
Do not confuse that with the 35 day discovery deadline. They are different rules with different clocks, and conflating them is a real and costly error.
The statute says the motion must be granted. It is not discretionary once the chargeable time exceeds the limit.
For an indictment, dismissal on speedy trial grounds is with prejudice. The statute lists the grounds on which a court may authorize the People to re-present a case to a grand jury, and speedy trial is deliberately not among them, so the dismissal bars further prosecution of those charges in that county.
A speedy trial claim also survives a guilty plea for appellate purposes, which is unusual. An order denying the motion is reviewable on appeal even where the conviction was entered on a plea.
Both courts, depending on the charge.
Misdemeanor appeals go to the Appellate Term for the Ninth and Tenth Judicial Districts; felony appeals go to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Related: what happens at an arraignment, desk appearance tickets, and criminal defense in Nassau County.
This guide is general information about New York law, not legal advice about your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and penalties change, and how the law applies depends on facts no webpage knows. Check the linked primary source, and speak with a lawyer about your own case.
Speak with a lawyer
The consultation is free and confidential, and the phone is answered around the clock.
(516) 294-1133
Toner Law Firm
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 400
Garden City, New York 11530
Attorney Advertising. Nothing on this page is legal advice, and contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.