The Bronx Criminal Court ruled on March 23, 2026, that A. Levinshon’s motion to dismiss his misdemeanor case was denied. This decision impacts how misdemeanor cases are handled regarding the timing of arraignments and the prosecution's declaration of readiness for trial.
The ruling clarifies the legal standards surrounding speedy trial rights in misdemeanor cases and distinguishes them from felony cases. The court's decision is significant as it addresses procedural issues that could affect numerous defendants in similar situations.
Background
A. Levinshon was charged with a misdemeanor in September 2025. The case began with a complaint that relied on hearsay from an informant. On December 23, 2025, the last day of the statutory 90-day speedy trial period, the prosecution filed a superseding instrument, which included the informant's supporting deposition, discovery materials, and a statement of readiness. Levinshon was arraigned on the superseding information during the next court appearance.
Levinshon’s defense argued that the prosecution's declaration of readiness was invalid because the conversion of the complaint to an information occurred after hours on the final day of the speedy trial period. The defense contended that this timing made it practically impossible for Levinshon to be arraigned before the deadline, thus violating his speedy trial rights under New York law.
The Ruling
The court, presided over by Judge David L. Goodwin, ruled against Levinshon’s motion to dismiss. The court determined that the prosecution's declaration of readiness was valid, stating, "the People could validly declare ready even though they filed their supporting deposition in the evening of the 90th day."
Judge Goodwin explained that the legal precedent set by the case People v. England, which involved felony cases, did not apply to misdemeanors in the same way. He noted that the specific impediments to readiness in felony cases do not have a counterpart in misdemeanor cases, allowing for greater flexibility in declaring readiness for trial.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for how misdemeanor cases are processed in New York. By affirming that the prosecution can declare readiness even if the conversion of a complaint to an information happens late in the day, the court has clarified that the timing of these procedural steps does not necessarily impede a defendant’s rights. This decision may influence future cases where the timing of arraignments and declarations of readiness could be challenged.
Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the notion that the prosecution's obligation to be ready for trial is distinct from the actual scheduling of court appearances. The court emphasized that as long as the prosecution takes steps to ensure readiness within the statutory timeframe, they fulfill their obligations under the law.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Levinshon plans to appeal the decision. However, the ruling sets a precedent that may affect similar cases in the future, particularly regarding the timing of procedural actions in misdemeanor prosecutions.