4 No. 156
The People &c.,
Respondent,
v.
Pete Nicholas,
Defendant.
_________________________________________________________________
International Fidelity Insurance Co.,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 126
November 19, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Steven C. Sheinberg, for appellant.
Stephen K. Lindley, for respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
GRAFFEO, J.:
CPL 540.10 mandates that the People take action to enforce a bail bond
forfeiture order within a specified period of time. In this appeal we
must determine when that time period begins to run. Because we hold
that the time requirement is triggered when Supreme Court finds that a
defendant's absence is unexcused and makes a determination on the
record directing forfeiture of the bail bond, we affirm the order of
the Appellate Division that directed enforcement of the forfeiture
order.
Defendant Pete Nicholas was charged in a July 1996 indictment with
murder in the second degree. At his arraignment, bail was set at
$100,000 cash or secured bond. Defendant was released from custody in
December 1996 after appellant International Fidelity Insurance Company
posted a bail bond secured by real property owned by Russell Carbone,
a friend of defendant's family.
In August 1997, defendant appeared in Monroe County Supreme Court with
his attorney. The court informed defendant that the trial would
commence on October 14, 1997 and, pursuant to People v Parker (, 57
NY2d 136, 141), warned him that the trial would proceed in his absence
if he failed to appear on that date. He again accompanied his attorney
SNIPPETS:
Because we hold that the time requirement is triggered when Supreme Court finds that a
Defendant Pete Nicholas was charged in a July 1996 indictment with murder in the second
Defendant was released from custody in December 1996 after appellant International Fidelity
defendant appeared in Monroe County Supreme Court with his attorney.
He again accompanied his attorney to court on October 9, five days before the trial date, at
Defense counsel requested that the court delay the issuance of a bench warrant, suggesting as
The People asserted that a substantial period of time had elapsed since defendant's initial
Instead, at defense counsel's request, the sentencing was adjourned to provide Carbone an
Supreme Court signed the bail forfeiture order on January 12, 1998 but stayed its enforcement
In opposition, Fidelity argued that the order was unenforceable because the People had failed
Fidelity asserted that the statutory time period must be measured from October 14, 1997, the
The People countered that the January 13, 1998 filing was timely because the period did not
Subdivision 1 provides that when a defendant fails to appear at a scheduled court appearance
the forfeiture may be discharged if defendant appears at any time before final adjournment
Under this statutory scheme, the People are obligated to act expeditiously in enforcing any
By the plain language of these statutes, both time requirements begin to run when the court
Thus, in Schonfeld, we noted that the purpose of the timely filing requirement was to mandate
Bennett involved an interpretation of § 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
When defendant in that case failed to appear at a scheduled hearing, the court entered that
|
