Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. William Korang and Herbert Santeng, Defendants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1994-03-02
Citations: 160 Misc. 2d 604
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v William Korang and Herbert Santeng, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 160
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
[610 NYS2d 730]
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v William Korang and Herbert Santeng, Defendants.
Supreme Court, Queens County,
March 2, 1994
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Noah Lipman for William Korang, defendant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney of Queens County (Kenneth Russo of counsel), for plaintiff.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Joan O'Dwyer, J.
The defendants are charged with, inter alia, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree. On February 16, 1994, prior to the commencement of a pretrial suppression hearing, the defendant Korang moved for an order precluding his statement contending that the People's CPL 710.30 notice of this statement was not timely served. The People opposed the motion and have produced a copy of the written notice of their intent to offer defendant's statement, which was served upon the defendant at his criminal court arraignment on October 30, 1993.
In the opinion of the court, the People have satisfied the mandates of CPL 710.30, which requires notice to "be served within fifteen days after arraignment and before trial" (CPL 710.30 [2]). The court notes that while the deadline for service is 15 days after the defendant's Supreme Court arraignment, there is no requirement that service be made only during that 15-day period, and not before. Such an interpretation of the statute would be strained and illogical, for service of the section 710.30 notice at an earlier time, such as at the criminal court arraignment, is more advantageous to a defendant, who will be better equipped to make an informed and meaningful decision with respect to such matters as testifying before the Grand Jury or accepting a plea offer.
The court finds, therefore, that the People's section 710.30 notice was sufficient. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to preclude his statement is denied.