On May 10, 2016, four individuals who were arrested in the Bronx for low-level misdemeanors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the State of New York's Unified Court Systems for failure to provide the constitutionally guaranteed rights to a speedy trial and due process. The plaintiffs sought class certification for people similarly affected by the structural and systemic court delays in the Bronx Criminal Court.

Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Bronx Criminal Court’s inordinate delays violated the plaintiffs’ Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as New York state’s criminal procedure laws, which require prosecutors to be ready for trial within 90, 60, or 30 days of the commencement of a criminal action depending on the category of misdemeanors. According to the complaint, although there were over 45,000 misdemeanor arraignments in 2015, only 98 went on trial. Further, the few people who managed to exercise their right to trial wait on average 642 days for nonjury and 827 for a jury trial, and many people ended up taking plea bargains and giving up their right to a trial because of the Bronx Criminal Court’s overall dysfunctional administration.

The plaintiffs, represented by the Bronx Defenders and private counsel, sought declaratory and equitable relief. The case was assigned to District Judge George B. Daniels and Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.

On June 30, 206, the State moved to dismiss because none of the four plaintiffs had cases pending in Bronx Criminal Court and thus lacked standing to sue. The State further argued that the Court should abstain from reviewing the case since the plaintiffs’ claims involved the state judiciary, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim. On December 22, 2016, Judge Daniels granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. First, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing and also dismissed Governor Cuomo as a defendant. But the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on abstention grounds because the judge could contemplate granting declaratory and injunctive relief that would not necessarily interfere with or restructure the state court’s lawful authority. The Court also rejected the argument that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim after it found that one of the plaintiffs waited 877 days between his arraignment and a final resolution. The Court allowed plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint.

On January 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 8, 2017, the parties met with Judge George B. Daniels and interim pretrial conference was scheduled, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is currently pending.

This case is ongoing.

MJ Koo - 03/27/2017


compress summary